Probate court candidates from left: Jane Bassett, Tamara Garwood, Constance Jones, Julia Owdziej and Tracy Van den Bergh.

Jane Bassett, Tamara Garwood, Constance Jones, Tracy Van den Bergh and recently appointed judge Julia Owdziej will appear on the Aug. 5 primary ballot. The nonpartisan primary will narrow the race to two candidates for the Nov. 4 general election.

Owdziej was appointed to the seat by Gov. Rick Snyder just last month, on June 2, to fill the vacancy on the court left by Nancy Wheeler’s retirement. The announcement of that retirement came on May 1, after candidates had filed to run. Wheeler was expected to retire at the end of the year, but it came earlier than expected due to health reasons. Bassett, Garwood and Jones currently work in private practice while Van den Bergh is a staff attorney for a legal services nonprofit.

On its Vote411.org website, the LWV has posted candidates’ written responses to questions: [Probate court candidate responses] As of July 17, the Vote411.org website had not been updated to reflect the fact that the race now has an incumbent.

The county probate judge handles largely estate cases, and issues regarding mental health and addiction. During the July 7 judicial forum, the candidates made opening statements, answered six questions and then made closing statements. The forum was moderated by Miriam Eve Borenstein with questions predetermined by the League of Women Voters after asking for public submissions.

Candidates’ remarks are summarized below. To view the recorded video from the probate court LWV forum, use Community Television Network’s video on demand. 

Opening Statements

Tracy Van den Bergh: Van den Bergh began by thanking the League of Women Voters for hosting the forum. In the course of knocking on doors for her campaign, Van den Bergh was telling prospective voters that a judge is the most likely elected public official to directly affect them or someone they love, and that’s why this is an important election. Having worked as a social worker before becoming an attorney, Van den Bergh said she has the combined perspective totaling 20 years to make her a successful judge. That includes advocating for people with disabilities and mental illnesses, and for families – first as a social worker and now as a lawyer.

Constance Jones: Jones said she was very delighted to be at the forum. She explained that in the fall of 2013, when the Washtenaw County trial court declared that this county judgeship would be for probate issues, she decided to run because she’s been an attorney for 26 years and most of her work has been in probate issues. Jones said she doesn’t want to be just any judge: She wants to be the probate judge of Washtenaw County.

Julia Owdziej:  She spelled out her last name and pronounced it deliberately: /owds-eye/. She explained that she currently serves as the county probate judge after being appointed to the position on June 2. She’s been an attorney for 23 years, which includes time as an advocate, a Michigan assistant attorney general, and an assistant prosecutor in Washtenaw County. She also has experience as a decision-maker – as a juvenile court referee. She also cited her experience as a deputy probate register. With this unique combination of experience behind her, Owdziej said, she hopes voters decide to elect her as judge.

Jane Bassett: Bassett thanked the League of Women Voters for hosting, and stressed the importance of the public’s familiarity with the candidates. Bassett said she would bring 20 years of experience of probate experience in private practice to the bench. She added that she opened her own firm after graduating law school and it now employs three lawyers and eight staff members, including a part-time social worker. In addition to probate law, her firm handles elder and disability law. Bassett, a certified veterans’ lawyer, said that as a judge she could balance personal freedom while protecting individuals.

Tamara Garwood: Noting her undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and her law degree from Detroit College of Law, Garwood said she began her legal career interning with a federal magistrate judge  and worked in the Wayne County office of the prosecuting attorney in the child and family abuse bureau. Since then, she’s worked in private practice for 15 years, Garwood said, where she has handled family and probate law. Garwood added that she’s trained in collaborative law and as a mediator, and is also an arbitrator and guardian ad litem. That wide variety of experience gives her the practical and technical knowledge needed for the position, she concluded.

Question: What is your general judicial philosophy?

Bassett: In the probate court, Bassett said her philosophy is to respect all the participants and to make sure everyone has the opportunity to work out their differences. Further, the rights of individuals for whom an action is petitioned need to be balanced against societal needs. Bassett said community involvement and support resources should be sought with the goal of maintaining a person’s independence.

Garwood: To be open-minded and fair, responded Garwood, as well as to be respectful of the participants and the law – while understanding that sometimes the law has holes and it’s necessary to have practical and technical knowledge to be a successful judge. She also emphasized respecting the court and its participants. That includes being punctual and prepared. Further, she noted the importance of balancing civil liberties while keeping society safe. It’s critical to protect children and survivors of domestic violence, she said.

Jones: Jones said that primarily she wants to preside over a court where people feel they have all been heard and believe the experience has been fair. A judge has to balance the need for a decision, compared to referring a situation to mediation.  She added that judges are members of the community and shouldn’t be isolated as they sometimes are. The community elects judges, and judges should be involved in the community that has elected them, she said.

Owdziej: As the sitting judge, Owdziej said these are questions she’s already deciding. And prior to being a judge, she was a referee in juvenile court, where, like a judge, Owdziej was the decision-maker. In cases of juvenile delinquency, Owdziej said it’s a tough balancing act that involves the rights of the victim and concerns for the child that committed the crime. She added that she’s decided child welfare cases and has even had the Department of Human Services call in the middle of the night to render an immediate decision.

Van den Bergh: Van den Bergh said everyone would have a voice in her courtroom, regardless of race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status or education.  Judges need to be impartial, she said, but they shouldn’t be isolated, and this is especially true when dealing with unrepresented individuals. As she’s learned from her nonprofit work with the Legal Services of South Central Michigan, Van den Bergh said the judge and the people in court need to be fully informed to achieve impartiality. For example, if Geoffrey Fieger was facing off against an unrepresented individual, it’s the judge’s responsibility to make sure all the information in the case is heard, not just what Fieger has said. Both sides need to be represented, she said.

Question: What exactly does the county probate court do and how can we have a better-informed public on this court?

Garwood: In Washtenaw County, there’s a unified court system, meaning that being a circuit court or probate court judge doesn’t necessarily define the type of cases seen by that judge, Garwood said. About a year ago, the Washtenaw County trial court had announced what type of cases this open position would be handling – and this position will handle family law in addition to probate law. For example, family law can include custody cases and divorces, while probate law can include conservatorship and guardianship cases. Probate law and family law are very different, but the judge would have to be equipped to handle both kinds of cases. Garwood said that with her experience, she’ll be able to do both.

Jones: This is an area of confusion, Jones said. Washtenaw County has seven circuit judges and two are designated probate seats, with one handling juvenile probate matters. The other seat – the one they’re currently vying for – handles mostly probate cases, with 80% of the docket dedicated to probate and only 20% to family cases, Jones said. She continued, explaining that this seat was designated as a probate seat and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. “Again, I am not shy in saying that I love doing probate work, as sort of boring as that might be to some people,” Jones said.

Owdziej: Owdziej said probate court cases consist primarily of guardianships, conservatorships, deceased estates and mental health issues. Owdziej noted she was a deputy probate register for the past three years, where she trained people in being guardians and conservators. The family law part of the position involves tough decisions about the future of the children, and she’s been making those decisions already, she noted. Further, the role of the court could change over time, she said, but noted that she also has experience with felony and criminal cases.

Van den Bergh: As she mentioned in her opening statement, Van den Bergh said her campaign has gone door-to-door speaking with constituents about the importance of probate judges, and the response has largely been positive. Her campaign has knocked on 10,000 doors, she said. However, these same people also said they’ve never had a judicial candidate come to their door, she added. Van den Bergh said judges should be accessible to the public as well as advocating for programs. Judges should not be isolated from the community. This is how to educate the public on the court, Van den Bergh said.

Bassett: Having looked at the probate docket over a two-week period, Bassett reported that 83% and 65% of the cases of the first and second week, respectively, concerned adults with mental health issues. “The vast majority of the probate docket is that population of people who we as society need to take care of.” Next in percentage were the decedent cases involving trusts. Domestic cases, she said, are actually a smaller part of the docket, and it’s important that people understand this. So the public should look to a judge of the probate court who has experience working with people who have disabilities and who need the support of the community.

Question: In what ways do you plan to change and improve the operation of the court and its procedures?

Jones: Jones said she has a couple of ideas. For example, she said it’s vital that more guardians and conservators are trained, because currently there are only 13 in Washtenaw County. We could have more, because we’re a community rich in human resources, she said. Further, probate court often has individuals appear in court without an attorney. So while Jones said she thinks the court is already doing well at this, she stressed that the court needs to be user-friendly.

Owdziej: She said that during her work for the probate court in the last few years, there was an overhaul of procedures when the juvenile and probate courts merged. That overhaul increased the court’s efficiency, she said. A lot has been done to make the court more user-friendly. She added that there’s since been collaboration with law students from local universities on cases.

Van den Bergh: Van den Bergh mentioned again her combined experience as a social worker and lawyer. She echoed Bassett, saying the probate court sees a high percentage of individuals with mental disabilities. She outlined a program where social work students would provide information to litigants in these cases involving mental disabilities – at no cost to the community. In fact, she currently runs a similar program with Eastern Michigan University social work students where the students help with case management. They provide wrap-around services. The social work student could, for example, provide a referral to social services.

Bassett: Having practiced in about a dozen probate courts in Michigan, Bassett said Washtenaw County does relatively well in moving cases along and eliminating unnecessary repeat hearings. Still, there are improvements that could be made in the transfer of files between the clerk’s office and the court. As Jones had said, the number of guardians and conservators needs to be increased. Further, people in these probate cases are often nervous in court so it’s important that the judge recognizes this. The key is to let them speak their mind and maybe give them a little extra time.

Garwood: Garwood also called for more guardians and conservators, noting that she’s undergone the training to take appointments. “It takes a big heart and a lot of energy to provide those services and we need more people to volunteer in that capacity,” she said. Garwood also said she would encourage the use of other court programs and highlighted the new peacemaking court, which she described as a way for people to solve their issues in a more holistic fashion.

Question: If you became aware of unethical conduct on the part of a trial advocate in a case in which you were presiding, how would you handle it? Do you believe that judges should be required to report any attorney misconduct?

All five candidates said yes to the question of reporting attorney misconduct.

Owdziej: Owdziej added that it’s vital to make sure that neither side involved in the case is harmed because of the attorney’s misconduct.

Van den Bergh: Van den Bergh cautioned that you have to be very sure when making that kind of accusation. Van den Bergh emphasized that adequate time needs to be given to individuals when their attorney has been removed because of unethical conduct, so proper counsel can be obtained.

Bassett: The state bar in Michigan is a mandatory bar, Bassett noted, so that means lawyers need to police each other.

Garwood: Garwood said this isn’t a hypothetical question for her. The rules of professional conduct are very specific, she said. Two years ago she was involved in a case in which the opposing lawyer was not a member of the state bar of Michigan. Garwood said she reported the lawyer, because it was her obligation to do so and she takes the obligation very seriously.

Jones: Having been a panel member on the attorney discipline board for three years, Jones said ethical violations are not always as clear as anyone would like it to be. “There are a lot of gray areas, particularly in the ethical obligation arena,” she said.

Question: Why did you decide to move from your current or previous position into public service?

Van den Bergh: Van den Bergh said she had worked in a private firm as a commercial litigator, but realized it wasn’t her passion. Since 2008 she has been working for Legal Services of South Central Michigan, represents people in Washtenaw County unable to afford legal representation. She said her passion is to help the voiceless and she wants to bring her experience representing the underrepresented to her judgeship.

Bassett: She said she loves what she does currently and, consequently, it was a difficult decision to run for judge. In her current job, Bassett said she works with people in medical crisis to make their lives better. She sees this judicial position as an extension of that. The impact of a probate judge’s decision can improve a person’s life, or put them on the wrong path, she said. Knowing that difference is something that she can bring to the bench, she said.

Garwood: Garwood said she has always been involved in public service. Growing up, her family was one of only a few Jewish families in a small Wisconsin town. At Christmas and Easter, Garwood said her family would serve in food pantries to give back to the community on a day that meant so much to other residents of her town. She currently volunteers regularly in public schools. In her practice, she handles a lot of high-conflict cases. The draw for Garwood is that if she were elected, she said she’d be able to help more people every day.

Jones: Probate lawyers do a lot more public service than people realize. Being a guardian or conservator, for instance, is often unpaid, as the people needing guardianship don’t have the necessary funds, Jones said. As for herself, Jones said she has served on the board of Ozone House for 13 years and has been active in other community programs. Jones explained that being a judge would be an extension of those commitments.

Owdziej: Owdziej said she’s always worked in public service, “helping the most vulnerable folks that come into the system.” She started out as a Michigan assistant attorney general representing the Department of Human Services in Wayne County probate court. Then she worked in the Washtenaw County prosecutor’s office and helped victims of crime. Later she worked in the juvenile court – which is a court of rehabilitation. Michigan has a statute that allows the juvenile court to issue orders related to the parents in the household.

Question: In this position, you’re going to be dealing with complex cases often dealing with mental illness or substance abuse and with multiple people, but often victimless. Where would your priorities as judge lie in those cases?

Bassett: It’s key, Bassett said, to balance an individual’s guaranteed constitutional rights with the court’s responsibility to protect that individual. Judges need to look at alternatives and determine if that individual truly is a danger to herself or himself.

Garwood: Garwood agreed with Bassett, but added that a judge also needs to look at the best interest of society as a whole. Each case needs to be looked at holistically and the court should attempt to identify any underlying problems that can be corrected. That can help prevent the return of people to court on a regular basis.

Jones: Jones echoed Garwood and Bassett, saying the real balancing act with respect to the mentally ill is to allow them to make their own decisions while protecting them from very bad decisions. She added that the probate court needs to put in processes that protect people from due process violations or “bad decisions being made by actors in the court.”

Owdziej: Owdziej said that in her time as a juvenile referee, she was also in charge of the juvenile drug court program for seven years. In that program she worked with alcoholic or drug-addicted juveniles. Many of their parents had addictions, and the children often had mental illnesses as well. She said she needed to take a holistic approach to each child, which did not center around punishment. There were logical consequences to a child’s actions, but the emphasis was on treating the child and treating the family. Further, Owdziej explained that this court isn’t searching for these children, but that the drug court was often the last resort for parents who are desperate for help for their children.

Van den Bergh: Citing her background as a social worker, Van den Bergh she’s especially excited about these kinds of cases. Before becoming a lawyer, she was a clinical social worker for 10 years and was the mental health director for an adolescent drug abuse program. Because of her dual background, she said she knows both the clinical and legal consequences of what individuals are going through.

Closing Statements

Bassett: Bassett thanked the League of Women Voters and encouraged voters to inform themselves in the run-up to this fall’s elections. There are many resources to examine each candidate in-depth, especially online. “I bring the experience, I bring the compassion, I can be tough when I have to be tough, but I prefer that people be able to reach their own solutions,” Bassett said. These are tough family matters, for example, where siblings are arguing over guardianship of their mom who has dementia, which continue long after they leave the court, she said.

Garwood: Garwood recounted how growing up in her small hometown in Wisconsin, she watched her father and grandfather go to work as lawyers each day with an amazing devotion to their clients. She said she has wide experience that includes public and private practice –as a mediator, a guardian and arbitrator. And while she’s making difficult decisions at work, she joked that she also has to make tough decisions with two daughters at home – sometimes met with protest. “I’m fair and open-minded and filled with compassion. I will treat everyone who comes before me with respect and everyone will have a fair and open opportunity to be heard,” she said. She hoped that voters will inform themselves about all the candidates.

Owdziej: Having been appointed to the position of probate judge, Owdziej explained that she underwent a rigorous application process, and that each of the other current candidates had also applied. All five candidates had applied, she noted, but ultimately, Owdziej was selected. She said she’s proud of that, noting the more than 20 years that she’s worked for Washtenaw County. She spent the first nine years of her career as an advocate. But she also has the experience of being a decision-maker. Owdziej added she’s very proud to have the endorsements of Washtenaw County’s public defender Lloyd Powell, and prosecutor Brian Mackie.

Van den Bergh: All five candidates are qualified to be the probate judge, but Van den Bergh said she alone brings a fresh take and a diversity of background to the position. She pointed out that while Washtenaw County is a progressive county, no judge comes from a legal services background or has done extensive pro bono work for low-income residents. It’s wonderful that many of the judges come from private practice or the prosecutor’s office, but Van den Bergh said she would bring a new perspective to the courtroom. She’s bringing 20 years of social work experience to the bench. Van den Bergh added she has the energy to be successful judge and has endorsements from more than 50 attorneys.

Jones: Jones said she has the broadest and most in-depth experience of any candidate running, mentioning her 26 years as a lawyer. Further, much of her experience is in probate law. She’s specialized in probate issues for 15 years. Jones said it’s vital that a candidate have experience in probate law and that voters shouldn’t overlook a lack of probate experience. She added that she also has broad community support, having been raised in Ann Arbor and earning her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Michigan. Finally, she encouraged voters to inform themselves on what she called a “vitally important position.”

Voting Information

The last day to register for the Aug. 5 election was July 7. The last day to register for the Nov. 4 general election is Oct. 6. To check your voter registration or to find your polling place, visit the Michigan Secretary of State’s website.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local elections. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already found in favor of  The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Andy Levin of Lean & Green Michigan talks with Washtenaw County commissioner Felicia Brabec before the county board’s Dec. 4, 2013 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

They ultimately gave initial approval to a notice of intent to form a PACE program. If created, the program would allow commercial property owners in Washtenaw County to fund energy improvements by securing financing from lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments.

The county’s proposal entails joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program. Andy Levin, who’s spearheading the PACE program statewide through Lean & Green, was on hand during the Dec. 4 meeting to field questions. Levin – son of U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin and nephew of U.S. Sen. Carl Levin – was head of the Michigan Dept. of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (DELEG) during Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration, when the PACE legislation was enacted.

Also attending the Dec. 4 meeting was state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), who spoke briefly during public commentary to support the county’s initiative. She was instrumental in passing the state enabling legislation to allow such programs in Michigan. Warren is married to county commissioner Conan Smith, a co-founder of the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which is a partner in Lean & Green Michigan.

A final vote on the notice of intent is now scheduled for the board’s first meeting next year – on Jan. 8, 2014. A public hearing on this issue has been set for the board’s Jan. 22 meeting. That’s because the board would need to take an additional vote to actually create the PACE district. No date for that vote to create the district has been set.

In other action, commissioners accepted a $150,000 state grant to establish the Washtenaw County Trial Court’s Peacemaking Court. Timothy Connors, a 22nd circuit court judge who’s leading this initiative, attended the Dec. 4 meeting and told the board that this project will explore and determine what, if any, tribal court philosophies or procedures might have applicability in Michigan’s courts. Participation in the peacemaking court will be voluntary.

The board also made a raft of appointments, including appointing the county’s water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt, as director of public works. That vote came over dissent from commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. The board of public works had raised a question about the appointment’s potential conflict-of-interest, given that Pratt holds an elected office as water resources commissioner. The county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, prepared a legal opinion on the issue, stating that the appointment would not be prohibited by the state’s Incompatible Public Offices Act.

No appointment was made to the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA). Richard Murphy – one of two RTA board members from Washtenaw County – is not seeking reappointment. During the Dec. 4 meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi indicated that there’s some uncertainty about when Murphy’s one-year term actually ends, and he was sorting that out with state and RTA officials. Because RTA board members weren’t sworn in until April of 2013, some state and RTA officials believe the term extends until April – even though appointments for Washtenaw County’s two slots were made by the previous county board chair, Conan Smith, in late 2012.

The application process is still open for the RTA, with a new deadline of Jan. 12. That same deadline applies to openings on the county’s food policy council and parks & recreation commission. Applicants can submit material online, or get more information by contacting the county clerk’s office at 734-222-6655 or appointments@ewashtenaw.org.

Countywide PACE Program

On Dec. 4, commissioners were asked to take an initial step to create a countywide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program.

The goal of PACE is to help commercial property owners finance energy improvements by securing financing from lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments. In Michigan, the legislation that enables this approach (Public Act 210) was enacted in late 2010, at the end of Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s last term in office.

The proposal being considered by the county entails joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program. Andy Levin, who’s spearheading the PACE program statewide through Lean & Green, was on hand during the Dec. 4 meeting to field questions. He described his role as “matchmaker,” helping the property owners find energy contractors and lenders.

The law firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone is a partner in Lean & Green, and would act as legal counsel for any deal done through the county’s PACE program. Several other counties are part of Lean & Green, according to the group’s website. Other partners listed on the site include the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which was co-founded by county commissioner Conan Smith. Smith is married to State Sen. Rebekah Warren, who also spoke briefly during public commentary on Dec. 4 to support the initiative. She was instrumental in passing the state enabling legislation to allow such programs in Michigan.

The city of Ann Arbor was one of the first Michigan communities to establish a PACE program, which it did in 2011. The city used a federal grant that paid for the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition to develop the city’s program. Its first projects moved forward earlier this year, when the city sold over $500,000 in PACE bonds through Ann Arbor State Bank, making it the first city in Michigan to complete a PACE bond sale. The financing funded projects at four locations: Arrowwood Hills Cooperative Housing, Big Boy Restaurant, the Goodyear Building, and Kerrytown Market & Shops.

The county’s PACE program would differ from the one set up by the city of Ann Arbor – which created a loan loss pool to reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. Washtenaw County does not plan to set up its own loan loss reserve, and no county funds would be used for the program, according to Levin.

However, a reserve fund is mentioned in documentation that describes the program:

8. Reserve Fund

In the event Washtenaw County decides to issue bonds to provide financing for a PACE Program, Washtenaw County can determine at that time to fund a bond reserve account from any legally available funds, including funds from the proceeds of bonds.

By participating in LAGM [Lean & Green Michigan], Washtenaw County assists its constituent property owners in taking advantage of any and all appropriate loan loss reserve and gap financing programs of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (“MEDC”). Such financing mechanism can similarly be used to finance a reserve fund.

[.pdf of PACE program documentation] [.pdf of PACE cover memo] [.pdf PACE resolution]

Commissioners discussed the topic for about an hour, with most of that time centered on questions they asked of Levin.

The state statute requires a three-step process to create a PACE program. On Dec. 4, the board was being asked to take the first step – approving a resolution of intent to notify the public that the board intends to move forward with creating a PACE district. The statute lays out the information that the county must include in notifying the public – including different types of financing options.

The next step would be to hold a public hearing. The final step would be a resolution that actually creates the countywide PACE district. That last step would likely come before the board in late January or early February.

Countywide PACE Program: Public Commentary

Rebekah Warren, an Ann Arbor resident and state senator (D-District 18), spoke during public commentary. She said she was there to lend support to the resolution regarding PACE. She noted that she had introduced the bill when she served in the state House of Representatives, and helped shepherd it through in a bipartisan package of bills that passed the Democratic-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate at the time. Jeff Irwin, who served on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners then, also helped advocate for the legislation, she said. [Irwin, also an Ann Arbor Democrat, was subsequently elected to the state House of Representatives, representing District 53.]

Rebekah Warren, an Ann Arbor resident and state senator representing District 18. She is married to county commissioner Conan Smith.

Warren described energy efficiency as a “little forgotten piece of our energy work.” It’s “not quite as sexy as some other things we do,” she said, “but the cheapest energy form out there is energy never used.” So why don’t more people invest in energy-efficiency improvements? It’s expensive on the front end, Warren noted, and sometimes the paybacks are long, so people need help with the financing.

Such improvements are great for the environment, Warren said. The more that people can rely on renewable energy sources, the better it is for the planet. It’s also great for property values, she argued – energy-efficiency upgrades to commercial or residential properties makes them more attractive for resale. It also helps the financial bottom line for homeowners and businesses. It’s a win-win for the community, for citizens, and for the planet, she said.

The PACE program in Michigan was born in Washtenaw County, Warren noted, and it would be fantastic to see the county board move forward on this policy to do the kind of work that needs to be done here. She said she’d be happy to make herself available as a resource, and to support the program as it moves forward.

In responding to Warren’s commentary, commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9) – who is married to Warren – said he was excited that the board would be considering the first step in establishing a PACE program. He noted that the board wouldn’t be creating the program that night, but rather would be voting on a resolution of intent to tell the public that they were considering such a program. He said he would have preferred a faster process than what the legislation laid out.

Countywide PACE Program: Board Discussion – How It Works

Conan Smith (D-District 9) began the discussion by apologizing for not attending the board’s Nov. 7 working session that included a briefing on the PACE program. He hoped that everyone’s questions would get answered, and he hoped to get board approval at both the initial ways & means meeting and at the regular board meeting that same night. [Typically, a resolution is given initial approval at a ways & means meeting, then is moved to the board agenda two weeks later. In December, however, there was only one meeting scheduled.] He said that the resolution of intent doesn’t obligate the county to do anything. “It just starts the process,” he said.

Smith suggested setting a public hearing for a board meeting in January 2014. That would give the public ample opportunity to read through the program before giving feedback, he said. Then the board could take action to actually create the PACE program at its meeting in early February. It’s a long timeline to get the program going, Smith said. There’s some urgency, he added, because there’s a property owner in Washtenaw County who wants to do a substantial project that could cost millions of dollars and create up to 20 jobs. It’s a project that’s in his Ann Arbor district, Smith noted, and he hoped to get that kind of economic activity moving.

He again asked the board to pass both the initial and final approval for the resolution of intent that night, then get into the “meaty debate on public policy in January and February.”

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) said in concept it seemed like a good thing. But she questioned one of the resolved clauses:

3. The Board of Commissioners formally states its intention to provide a property owner based method of financing and funds for energy projects, including from the sale of bonds or notes which shall not be a general obligation of the County, amounts advanced by the County from any other source permitted by law, or from owner-arranged financing from a commercial lender, which funds and financing shall be secured and repaid by assessments on the property benefited, with the agreement of the record owners, such that no County moneys, general County taxes or County credit of any kind whatsoever shall be pledged, committed or used in connection with any project as required by and subject to Act 270.

It seemed to be stating that the county would help finance projects, she said, but also that no county money would be used to do that. If it’s such a great program, she asked, why would the county have to put up any money?

Conan Smith responded, explaining that the county doesn’t need to put up any money for this program, although it could. He noted that the city of Ann Arbor decided to use some taxpayer dollars for its program, but it’s not necessary for the county to do that.

By way of background, the Ann Arbor city council created a PACE program and established an energy financing district over two years ago, at its Oct. 3, 2011 meeting. Several months earlier – in March 2011 – the council had voted to set up a $432,800 loan loss reserve fund to support the program, using an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) awarded to the city by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

C. Smith said that ideally, institutions like the county government can set up a program to be supportive of third-party financing – making sure that banks and credit unions are participating. He described how the program would work if he owned a business. He’d go to a bank to get financing for an energy efficiency project. Instead of refinancing his mortgage to do it, one option would be to go through the PACE program. It allows the business owner, the lender, and the county to enter into a contractual agreement. If the business owner pays the lender, the county isn’t involved. But if the business owner doesn’t pay, then the county starts its normal foreclosure process, C. Smith said. So it’s really just using the county’s foreclosure process to secure the business owner’s loan, he said, and no county dollars are involved.

In that case, Ping replied, why couldn’t the lender start the foreclosure process instead?

Andy Levin of Lean & Green Michigan explained that the language in the board’s resolution, which Ping had highlighted, mirrors exactly the language in the state enabling legislation – that’s why it’s included. But the mechanism that people are using is private lending, he said.

Energy efficiency improvements require an upfront investment that results in a payoff, he explained, but it typically takes several years to break even. Commercial loans are usually for a shorter period than the break-even point of such investments, Levin said, and that’s the problem that PACE sets out to solve.

The program draws on the special assessment power that each local unit of government holds. That way, the lender is the beneficiary of a property tax obligation. That’s different from a typical loan, in that it must be repaid before any other commercial loan. More significantly, he said, it runs with the land. So if the property is sold, the new owner is responsible for the PACE loan obligation. In turn, that means that the lenders are willing to make longer-term loans related to the useful life of the energy improvements – typically 10-20 years.

Levin pointed out that since 2008, PACE has been adopted by 31 states and the District of Columbia. And the states that are adopting this program aren’t just the stereotype “blue” states you might assume, he noted. The most recent state to adopt PACE was Texas, signed into law by Republican Gov. Rick Perry. “It’s totally apolitical – it just works for business,” Levin said.

A typical lender doesn’t have the risk profile or ability to make a loan like this for 20 years, Levin said, so a lot of lenders for energy improvements are private equity companies. There are three funds that exist for no other purpose than to make PACE loans, he said, and they’re all in Michigan.

Ping then asked about what happens when the property is sold, but the new owner isn’t a good credit risk. Does someone else have to approve the transfer of the PACE loan, given that it runs with the property? No, Levin replied – the PACE lender would not have any power over that sale.

The reason that lenders offer PACE loans is that it’s a long-term, secured, debt-based investment, Levin said. A lot of big organizations – like pension funds and insurance companies – need to have that kind of investment in their portfolios. And ultimately, the property is the collateral, he noted.

County commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked Levin and asked him to thank Levin’s dad for the work he does in D.C. [Levin's father is U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin and his uncle is U.S. Sen. Carl Levin.]

LaBarre wondered what would be the worst possible scenario for Washtenaw County, under the program. Levin described a scenario in which a PACE loan is made for a property, but then the property owner defaults and goes into foreclosure, and the property can’t be sold or is sold for less than the taxes owed. The PACE lien is equal to any other taxes owed on the property, Levin explained. That’s the only way any government entity could lose money, he said.

LaBarre wondered if Levin was seeing success with the program in Michigan. Were mainstream lenders participating, or just boutique investors? Levin described Michigan as an “infant” regarding PACE. So far, four counties and two cities had joined Lean & Green Michigan, he said. [The website lists the counties of Huron, Ingham, Macomb and Saginaw, and the cities of Rochester Hills and Southfield. The following day, on Dec. 5, the Wayne County commission voted to create a PACE program and join Lean & Green Michigan.]

Nationally, the PACE market has been roughly doubling every year, Levin said, and he projected that 2014 would be “the breakout year.” The biggest deal so far was for a Century City Hilton in Los Angeles, he said. In Michigan, a project in Southfield is getting consent for a PACE loan from Comerica, which holds the property’s mortgage, Levin said. He described it as a big step, because the lender who holds the mortgage on a property must give consent “or we cannot do the project.” That is a requirement of Michigan’s PACE legislation, which he said he fully supports.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wanted Levin to provide examples from other counties – “the good stuff and the bad stuff.” Levin replied that he couldn’t yet provide examples from Michigan, but he could bring examples from other states.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) pointed to the cover memo statement that indicated the contractor doing work on any PACE project of $250,000 or higher must guarantee the energy saving on that project. How is that possible? she asked. Levin replied that the state statute doesn’t specify how that’s done, but just states that it must be done. It was put into the legislation by large companies like Johnson Controls and Siemens because that’s a guarantee they can make, he added, and they thought it would give them a competitive advantage over smaller firms. The guarantee is usually based on an energy audit. If the energy company doing the work doesn’t have the wherewithal to guarantee the energy savings, it would have to get insurance to cover that, Levin said.

Responding to another question from Brabec, Levin said that legally, the county is creating a countywide PACE district. So a company based in Wayne County couldn’t use Washtenaw County’s PACE program. But by joining Lean & Green Michigan, all of the local governments participating in Lean & Green would be using the same processes and application, he said. So if a company has multiple properties throughout Michigan, the company would have just one process to follow if it worked through Lean & Green Michigan. That’s the advantage of local governments joining the Lean & Green coalition, he said.

Countywide PACE Program: Board Discussion – Ann Arbor’s PACE

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked how the city of Ann Arbor handles the administration of its PACE program. Levin called it an “open question.” The city had paid a private nonprofit to create and run its PACE program, Levin explained, but that contract ended in March of 2013. Levin contrasted that program with Lean & Green Michigan, saying that Lean & Green is a market model as opposed to a publicly-funded program.

Commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Conan Smith further explained that the city had hired the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition to create the PACE program, saying that no one else had done it in the state before that. It was anticipated that a lot of the CEC’s work – including legal documentation – would be leveraged by other communities across Michigan to build their own programs, he said. The city used federal grant funding to pay for CEC’s work, Smith added. He noted that CEC itself had been created by the city. It was previously called the city’s Clean Cities program before spinning off into a separate entity, he said, so there’s been a long relationship between CEC and the city.

By way of additional background, Matt Naud – the city’s environmental coordinator – told The Chronicle during a phone interview that the city doesn’t currently have the same level of staffing for its PACE program that it did during the CEC contract. However, Nate Geisler was recently hired as a full-time employee to staff the city’s energy program, and Naud indicated that Geisler would likely be working on PACE as part of that job.

So far, there has been one round of financing through the city’s PACE program. At its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting, the city council authorized issuing up to $1 million in PACE bonds, to be secured through special assessment revenues and the city’s reserve fund. The city ultimately sold $560,000 in PACE bonds through Ann Arbor State Bank and was the first city in Michigan to complete a PACE bond sale. The money funded projects at four locations: Arrowwood Hills Cooperative Housing, Big Boy Restaurant, the Goodyear Building, and Kerrytown Market & Shops. A fifth project – at the building on South State where Bivouac is located – was planned, but ultimately fell through, because the building’s owner would not sign off on the project, according to Naud. He reported that all the projects are completed except for the work at Arrowwood.

Some of the differences between the city’s approach and the one proposed by Levin relate to timing and interest rates. Naud noted that there are no administrative fees for the city, and interest rates are lower than what Lean & Green Michigan projects will likely secure on the commercial market. According to a press release issued by the city earlier this year, property owners involved in Ann Arbor’s first round of PACE financing have 10 years to repay PACE assessments at 4.75% interest.

Related to timing, Naud noted that because the city deals with smaller projects, it might take more time to line up enough projects to bundle into a bond offering.

Naud said he didn’t foresee that the city would end its PACE program unless a decision were made to not spend any staff time on it. He noted that there are strong economic development arguments to be made for energy-efficiency improvements that PACE supports, and that it also helps achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan, which calls for an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2015, compared to 2000 levels.

During the county board’s deliberations on Dec. 4, Brabec asked whether an Ann Arbor company would need to use the Ann Arbor PACE district or the county’s. Levin replied that it would be the company’s choice. Levin said that if a company’s project is over $350,000, it couldn’t go through Ann Arbor’s PACE program because the city can’t accommodate larger projects. He said he was totally supportive of Ann Arbor’s PACE program, and called the city a pioneer in the effort.

However, Levin said it’s impractical for every city and township to create its own PACE program. It makes more sense for the county to do it, he said.

Countywide PACE Program: Board Discussion – Other Administrators?

LaBarre said he’s spoken about this program with the county treasurer [Catherine McClary]. He said she seemed supportive, although she wanted to know more about it. He asked for Levin to describe the process for a business owner who was interested in the PACE program. Would they talk to the county, or to Levin’s organization, or a bank?

Levin explained that if the county decides to create a PACE program by joining Lean & Green Michigan, then Levin would become the county’s PACE administrator. Most local governments in Michigan don’t have the money to hire new staff to handle the administration, he noted. The only thing that the county does is to have a designated official who signs the special assessment agreements with property owners.

A property owner would come to Lean & Green Michigan, Levin said – there’s an application on its website. He noted that a mall owner in Ann Arbor who’s interested in PACE found out about it because an executive met Levin at a national PACE retreat. The company doesn’t want to use the city of Ann Arbor’s PACE program, he said, because the project is too big for the city and the company doesn’t want to use public funds. That property owner would have the ability to approach Lean & Green Michigan with everything in order, he said, including the energy audit and financing.

But smaller property owners might not have that ability. So part of his role is to “play matchmaker,” Levin said, helping the property owner find an energy contractor and a lender.

From left: Corporation counsel Curt Hedger and commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) asked about the administrative fees that Levin would be charging. Levin replied that the fees for Miller Canfield, the law firm that’s a partner in this venture, would vary depending on the deal. It could range from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands, depending on the size of the project. The fees for his firm, Levin Energy Partners, are generally 2% of the deal upfront.

Yousef Rabhi followed up on that question, asking for more details about how Levin would get paid. Levin clarified that his fees could be paid by the contractor, or it could be part of the closing costs. He noted that other costs associated with the project include a mandatory energy audit. The statute also requires a plan for ongoing monitoring and verification of those energy improvements.

Levin explained that the point of setting up Lean & Green Michigan was as an alternative to each local government paying a substantial amount of money to create and run its own PACE program. Taxpayers shouldn’t pay anything, and the entire process can be market-driven, Levin said.

Rabhi asked whether the program that Levin is proposing for Washtenaw County means that anyone who wants to do a PACE project through the county must work with Levin’s firm. Yes, Levin said. The county would be naming Levin as the third-party administrator for its PACE program. Levin pointed out that the county could actually create multiple PACE programs, if it wanted to. The county board can also end the program at any time, he said.

Rabhi asked if there are other options for entities to administer the county’s PACE program. Not in Michigan, Levin said. He described himself as part of a “brother and sisterhood of PACE pioneers” – about 30-40 people nationwide. Levin noted that he was head of the Michigan Dept. of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (DELEG) during Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration, when the PACE legislation was enacted.

When he left that position, he realized there was an issue with administering the program, because local governments don’t want to pay for administering their own PACE program or issue bonds that would be paid off through a special assessment. He also talked with representatives from large corporations, who told him that they weren’t interested in dealing with different rules and regulations that would be set up if each local government had its own PACE program.

That’s what led him to the idea of having one statewide PACE market, Levin said, and that’s why he created Lean & Green Michigan. Any county or city can join for free, he said, and after that, the local governments don’t have to do much. Every deal involves a property owner, an energy contractor and a lender. All three of those parties prefer the idea of one big Michigan market, instead of a lot of smaller programs, he said.

Indicating that he hoped Levin wouldn’t take offense, Rabhi said it was important to review all of the county’s options and ensure that they were proceeding in the right way.

County commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Levin replied that “it’s a huge entrepreneurial risk on my part, I mean, to be honest.” He’s doing a lot of setup that could take years, Levin said, and until projects start coming in, there’s no funding. “Not many people are willing to do that.”

Conan Smith told Rabhi that the short answer to the question of whether there is some other provider besides Lean & Green is “No.” Essentially, Lean & Green Michigan is a sole source provider of this service in the state, he said. As evidence, he pointed to an RFP (request for proposals) process that Wayne County undertook for a PACE administrator. There was one response, he said – from Lean & Green Michigan. “No one else wants to do this work,” Smith said. Washtenaw County could go through that same RFP process, he added, but he didn’t think there was anyone else who would respond.

In response to another query from Rabhi, Levin said that Lean & Green Michigan is the name of a program that Levin Energy Partners administers. He considers the Miller Canfield law firm to be an important partner too. Rabhi asked if the county was locking itself into using Miller Canfield on the legal side, under this proposal. Yes, Levin replied, to the extent that any outside counsel is needed.

Levin said he’s not just looking to get some energy projects done. “I’m looking at how Michigan can be the most innovative state in driving down the costs of these projects for property owners.”

Ronnie Peterson said he’d be supporting this proposal. It’s similar to other partnerships the county has in order to provide services to citizens, he said, giving Ann Arbor SPARK as an example. [SPARK is a nonprofit entity that provides economic development services, and receives appropriations from the county to help support that work.] Peterson said it didn’t cost the county one dime, and it will help Washtenaw County businesses function in a changing climate. The county can opt out of its arrangement with Levin at any time, he noted.

Peterson said he knew Levin on a personal basis, and that as a Harvard Law School graduate, Levin had more options than taking on this program. Peterson said he was grateful that Levin is giving back to the state with his talents and relationships that he’s built over the years. “I trust Andy Levin, and that does make a difference to me,” Peterson said.

Countywide PACE Program: Board Discussion – Next Steps

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked whether it would be a “done deal” if commissioners approved the proposal at their board meeting that night, following the ways & means meeting. If not, why were commissioners pushing it through to be voted on at the board meeting?

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, explained that the state statute requires a three-step process to create a PACE program. The board is being asked to take the first step – approving a resolution of intent. It notifies the public that the board intends to move forward with creating a PACE district. The statute lays out the information that the county must include in notifying the public – including different types of financing.

The next step would be to hold a public hearing. The last and most important step, Hedger explained, will be a resolution that actually creates the countywide PACE district. That would likely come before the board in late January or early February, he said.

Sizemore asked if there was a way to stipulate that labor for these projects would come from the county. Ronnie Peterson replied that Andy Levin is very respected in the labor community, and had been involved with the AFL-CIO on a national level. Sizemore said he didn’t need an answer that night, but it was an important issue that he wanted to address.

Conan Smith offered an amendment to the resolution, to set a public hearing on the proposal for Jan. 22.

Outcome on Smith’s amendment: On a voice vote, commissioners passed the amendment to set the public hearing date for Jan. 22. Rolland Sizemore Jr. dissented.

The board then discussed whether to take both an initial vote that night at its ways & means committee meeting, plus a final vote at the board meeting immediately following it that same night. [Typically, items receive initial approval at ways & means, then are brought to the regular board meeting two weeks later. However, there was only one board meeting in December – on Dec. 4.]

Yousef Rabhi wondered why the board couldn’t take a final vote at its first meeting in 2014, on Jan. 8. He noted that commissioners could still hold the public hearing on Jan. 22. Conan Smith noted that the first meeting of the year typically includes only organizational items, like officer elections, but he supported doing regular business then, too.

Ronnie Peterson didn’t have a problem giving the item final approval later that night, noting that the proposal doesn’t cost the county any money. Felicia Brabec pointed out that some commissioners had additional questions, and that it wouldn’t change the timeline to have a final vote for the notice of intent on Jan. 8, given that the hearing was already set for Jan. 22.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to a notice of intent to form a PACE district. A final vote on the notice of intent is expected on Jan. 8, with a public hearing on Jan. 22. A vote to establish the PACE district itself will come in late January or early February.

Peacemaking Court

At their Dec. 4 meeting, commissioners were asked to authorize acceptance of a $150,000 grant to establish the Washtenaw County Trial Court’s Peacemaking Court. The grant, awarded by the State Court Administrator’s Office, is for funding from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014.

The state grants are intended to support creative approaches in the court system. The Peacemaking Court is described in a staff memo:

Like tribal peacemaking programs and restorative justice programs, the Peacemaking Court will provide a great benefit to youth and the community in juvenile cases by reducing recidivism and giving youth a diversionary option to avoid a record that can preclude future educational and employment opportunities. Domestic relations and other family cases will benefit from more durable and tailored solutions that result from a clearer understanding of the different perspectives or “truths” of all those involved. This, in turn, will enable the healing of important relationships, in contrast to the harm and polarization that too often results for families through the adversarial process.

The Peacemaking Court will allow the parties and those most affected by the conflict to talk about the event, its impact on them, and to look at the whole conflict in a comprehensive context that leads to understanding and meaningful solutions that address the needs of all those involved. When participants are respected and the individuals responsible for causing the problem are part of the decision process and take responsibility for their actions in a meaningful way, the resolutions are more comprehensive and address the needs of everyone involved, as well as the issues that underlie the problem. An important difference between the traditional system and the peacemaking court process is that the resolution is determined WITH the court not BY the court.

Key members involved in this project are 22nd Circuit Court judge Timothy Connors, 14A District Court judge Cedric Simpson, project director Susan Butterwick, and Robert Carbeck, who is 22nd Circuit Court deputy court administrator and budget director. [.pdf of grant application]

Connors, who has spearheaded this initiative, was on hand at the Dec. 4 meeting to describe the project and answer questions. Carbeck also attended but did not formally address the board.

Peacemaking Court: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) invited judge Timothy Connors to the podium to describe the grant.

Timothy Connors, 22nd circuit court judge.

Connors said he knew commissioners wanted to know about funding. He told them the program not only doesn’t cost anything for the county, but it’s money coming in from the state. The only role for the county would be in administering the funds, he said.

The grant is to explore and determine what, if any, tribal court philosophies or procedures might have applicability in Michigan’s courts, Connors explained. These are things that can be borrowed from the more than 500 tribal nations across the country, he noted, including some of the tribal courts in Michigan that are leaders in the country. He’s been working with these courts and came to the conclusion that there’s a lot to learn.

Peacemaking courts are being held overseas, most notably by two communities in England, Connors reported, saying he’s met with representatives from those communities. Their approach is borrowed from New Zealand’s indigenous culture.

Connors noted that a lot of this work is based on South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings held during Nelson Mandela’s presidency. “So I can’t imagine anybody really being threatened by it,” he said. Only people who want to participate will use this approach, he explained – saying it’s not imposed on anyone. It’s designed to offer an alternative way to resolve differences. After 23 years on the bench, he said, he’s learned that the court system often addresses the symptom, but seldom talks about the disease.

Judge Cedric Simpson will be participating from the 14A District Court. Connors said the approach is already being offered in the domestic relations and family court, and there’s interest in it from business-related cases and in the probate court. “It is my commitment to spend the rest of my career with you working and trying to do the best I can in my final 11 years,” he said. [Judges are elected to six-year terms, and Connors' current term expires in January 2019. He was likely referring to the statutory age limit – judges must be under 70 years old at the time of their election.] Connors said he hoped the county took advantage of the grant, and that he’d keep the board informed of the educational sessions that will be held about the peacemaking court.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked Connors for his work. He said he’s been involved in alternative dispute resolution with the court, and was a small claims mediator, so “I know the power that conversations can have.” Learning from what other cultures have done is a great idea, Smith said, and he’s proud of the county and grateful to Connors and the team that pulled this together.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) echoed those sentiments, saying he was glad to have a small role in this project. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) also thanked Connors, and recalled a conversation they’d had recently about former judge Francis O’Brien. Peterson noted that O’Brien had been well-known across the state and country for advanced programs and treatment models for juveniles. He was pleased to see that Connors was making sure that the legacy of O’Brien continued.

Peterson also said he was pleased that the wall between the county board and the court is coming down. He hoped the dialogue would result in additional innovative programs, but he joked that the initiative had to come from the judges: “We dare not to mess with you in robes, because of the power that you possess,” Peterson quipped.

Connors responded, saying he didn’t see those walls and that such walls between the county administration and the court would be “ridiculous.” He said he intended to involve the county’s detention center in the decision-making, and indicated that the goal for everyone is to help the children.

Infrastructure Projects

Two infrastructure projects – in Dexter Township and Freedom Township – were on the board’s Dec. 4 agenda for approval.

The board was asked to authorize issuing up to $460,000 in bonds for the Copper Meadows drain project in Dexter Township, northwest of Ann Arbor. The drain is located in the Copper Meadows subdivision off of North Territorial Road, near the Dexter town hall. The bonds would be repaid with special assessments on Dexter Township, Washtenaw County, and property owners in the drainage district. The first assessment would be levied in December 2014. [.pdf of staff memo on Copper Meadows project]

The board also was asked to pass a resolution that directs the county’s board of public works to undertake a lake improvement project at Pleasant Lake in Freedom Township, located southwest of Ann Arbor. The township’s board of trustees has passed a resolution asking for the county’s assistance in implementing and financing of a project to control invasive and nuisance species at the lake. The proposed five-year project would require special assessments on property owners that would benefit from the work.

Outcome: Both infrastructure projects received unanimous final approval by the board.

Appointments

Over 30 appointments to various county boards, committees and commissions were on the Dec. 4 agenda for approval. [.pdf of appointments]

Washtenaw County water resources commissioner Evan Pratt was appointed as the county’s director of public works.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) read aloud his list of nominations, making a few additional comments along the way. He noted that an application for an opening on the agricultural lands preservation advisory committee had been received after the deadline, so he’d be bringing a nomination forward in January for that.

There were several unfilled positions on the local emergency planning committee, he noted, for slots that require certain types of representation – to represent hospitals, agriculture, and several other specific areas, for example. In total, the county needed to fill 23 positions, but only nine nominations were brought forward on Dec. 4.

An opening on the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission that resulted from the retirement this month of long-time commissioner Nelson Meade will not be immediately filled, to allow for the opening to be publicized.

Openings for most positions had been publicized in October and November. An appointments caucus was held on Nov. 21 to discuss the openings and applications. That caucus drew only two commissioners, however – Rabhi and Conan Smith (D-District 9), who both represent districts in Ann Arbor.

The deadline had been extended until Dec. 1 for openings on three entities: the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA); the Washtenaw County historic district commission; and the Washtenaw County food policy council. As a result of the extension, additional positions were filled on the HDC (Alec Jerome) and the food policy council (Markell Miller and Caitlin Joseph).

Also, no appointment was made to the RTA. Richard Murphy – one of two RTA board members from Washtenaw County – is not seeking reappointment. During the Dec. 4 meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi indicated that there’s some uncertainty about when Murphy’s one-year term actually ends, and that needs to be sorted out with state and RTA officials. Because RTA board members weren’t sworn in until April of 2013, some state and RTA officials believe the term extends until April – even though appointments for Washtenaw County’s two slots were made by the previous county board chair, Conan Smith, in late 2012.

Rabhi said he planned to re-open the application process, with a new deadline to be determined, after these issues are clarified.

Outcome: Appointments were approved unanimously.

Later in the month, the application process was re-opened for the RTA, with a new deadline of Jan. 12. That same deadline applies to openings on the county’s food policy council and parks & recreation commission. Applicants can submit material online, or get more information by contacting Peter Simms of the county clerk’s office at 734-222-6655 or appointments@ewashtenaw.org.

Appointments: Director of Public Works

In addition to the other appointments, the board was asked to appoint Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, as director of public works, effective Jan. 1, 2014. The current director of public works is Daniel R. Myers. According to a staff memo, the board of public works had raised a question about potential conflict-of-interest with this appointment. From the memo:

Since Evan is currently the elected Water Resources Commissioner for the County, the Board of Public Works wanted to assure themselves that it was not a conflict for the person serving as the Water Resources Commissioner to also be appointed the Director of Public Works. With the assistance of Corporation Counsel they researched this issue and it was determined that it would not be a conflict of interest. Additionally, the current organizational structure of Public Works places the Director under the management direction of the Water Resources Commissioner so there is already direct involvement in Director of Public Works activities. [.pdf of corporation counsel opinion]

Earlier this year, Dan Smith (R-District 2) had asked the corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, to weigh in on a separate issue – about the constitutionality of levying taxes based on pre-Headlee state laws. During deliberations at the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, Hedger said he would never put a legal opinion in a cover memo unless he’s directed by the board to do so. The board is his client – not individual commissioners, he told them, adding that he writes legal opinions under the board’s direction.

In the case of the opinion produced for the appointment of Pratt, Hedger indicated that the board leadership had asked for the opinion, on behalf of the entire board, as did the county administrator and the outgoing public works director.

Outcome: The appointment was approved on an 8-1 vote, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. He did not publicly state his reason for voting against this appointment.

Recognitions

Commissioners voted on resolutions of appreciation at their Dec. 4 meeting to honor two men who have served the county for decades: Dick Fleece and Nelson Meade.

Outgoing county health officer Dick Fleece and Ellen Rabinowitz, interim health officer.

Fleece has worked for the county for 38 years in the field of public and environmental health, and is retiring at the end of 2013. He was appointed the county’s environmental health director in 1994, and has served as the health officer since 2009. [.pdf of resolution of appreciation for Fleece] Fleece received a standing ovation from commissioners and staff.

At the county board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, commissioners had appointed Ellen Rabinowitz as interim health officer.

Also on Dec. 4, commissioners honored Nelson Meade, who is stepping down from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission after serving for over 40 years. [.pdf of resolution of appreciation for Meade] He was an administrator at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health and had served in various roles in city government, including two terms on the Ann Arbor city council. His departure from WCPARC was announced at its Nov. 12, 2013 meeting.

Meade did not attend the Dec. 4 meeting, but was given the framed resolution at a reception later in the week. And at the Dec. 10 WCPARC meeting, it was announced that County Farm Park will be renamed in Meade’s honor, as the Nelson Meade County Farm Park. The 141-acre park is located on Ann Arbor’s east side, at the southwest corner of Washtenaw Avenue and Platt Road.

Outcome: Both resolutions passed unanimously.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Public Health

At the board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, Ellen Rabinowitz was appointed as interim health officer for the county, because the county’s current health officer, Dick Fleece, was retiring. As they’d done in the past, at that meeting both Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) advocated for the county to create a board of public health. From The Chronicle’s Nov. 6 meeting report:

Conan Smith (D-District 9) told Rabinowitz that he really wants to see a public health board created. He asked her to report back to the board about what a public health board would mean to the department, and the process required to set it up. Rabinowitz replied that it’s an important issue to explore. The possibility of pulling together a board of experts is something she’s interested in exploring. Peterson said it should be a goal to establish such a board by the end of 2013, because public health advocates who might serve on the board should be involved in selecting a permanent director.

…

Regarding a public health board, Fleece said he’s heard varying opinions. Some people say that such boards require a lot of care and feeding to the extent that the board becomes a burden on staff. In other cases, the board can be an advocate and serve as a good source of information. There will be decisions to make regarding how much authority to give a public health board, he noted.

Fleece also pointed out that the county’s public health department already seeks advice from many sources, including the University of Michigan School of Public Health. He said he’d do everything he can to help with this process.

At the board’s Nov. 20, 2013 meeting, Rabinowitz told commissioners that she’d been working with the county administrator to develop a document that she planned to present to the board on Dec. 4. The document would lay out all the issues that need to be explored in reestablishing the board of public health, she said, including budget impacts, potential composition, and how it would relate to other existing boards.

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

On Dec. 4, Rabinowitz told the board that she knew Peterson had wanted a resolution on this issue to come forward at that meeting. However, she said she wasn’t ready yet because she’s still doing the due diligence and gathering information that’s needed to reestablish a board of public health. She was meeting the next day with the director of local public health services at the Michigan Dept. of Community Health to sort out why such a board is optional and what authority it would have. She’s also pulling together information about all the different ways that the county’s public health department currently receives public input, “because clearly that is one key role for a board of health,” she said.

Rabinowitz reported that she’ll also be meeting in January with the dean of the University of Michigan School of Public Health and the associate dean for public health practice to get their input. Her intent is to bring forward a resolution in the first quarter of 2014.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Rabinowitz, saying that he knew she wanted to do what’s best for the county, what’s legal under the state statute, and what’s best in terms of engaging citizens. He noted that the county public health department already works with about 10 different citizen boards and commissions that are working on specific areas, like environmental health. He wanted to look at elevating the voice of people who sometimes don’t have input, and he looked forward to the proposal she’d be bringing forward next year.

Peterson said his desire to have a board of public health would not go away. The county has a parks & recreation commission, a board of public works, a drain board and a road commission, he noted, and a board of public health is just as important. He expected an update from the county administrator in January regarding the status of such a board. He argued that the county board needs to appoint people to a public health board who could advocate on behalf of children and other vulnerable citizens.

Conan Smith said he also was committed to putting a board of public health in place to guide commissioners. However, he added, he also understands the need for time to figure it out and do it right. He didn’t want to delay it with the intention of killing it, but thought it was worthwhile to get it done right.

Rabhi said he didn’t see the additional time as a delaying tactic, and he appreciated the time that staff was putting into it.

On a different topic, Alicia Ping said she hoped Rabinowitz could serve as a resource. Ping had recently received an email from the Saline mayor, reporting that there had been another heroin overdose in that city. The mayor is coordinating a response with the Saline police department and school system, she said, and has asked Ping to reach out to the county to see what resources are available.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke during both opportunities for public commentary during the evening. He introduced himself as a recent candidate for Ann Arbor city council, as well as a previous candidate for other offices. He urged the board to do more for the community’s most disadvantaged residents, finding ways to provide better access to health care, housing, transportation and education. He asked commissioners to work during their vacation period to help those in need. He argued that Gov. Rick Snyder and the state legislature had neglected and bullied the most vulnerable citizens on Michigan, as well as middle-class residents.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The state grants are intended to support creative approaches in the court system. The Peacemaking Court is described in a staff memo:

Like tribal peacemaking programs and restorative justice programs, the Peacemaking Court will provide a great benefit to youth and the community in juvenile cases by reducing recidivism and giving youth a diversionary option to avoid a record that can preclude future educational and employment opportunities. Domestic relations and other family cases will benefit from more durable and tailored solutions that result from a clearer understanding of the different perspectives or “truths” of all those involved. This, in turn, will enable the healing of important relationships, in contrast to the harm and polarization that too often results for families through the adversarial process.

The Peacemaking Court will allow the parties and those most affected by the conflict to talk about the event, its impact on them, and to look at the whole conflict in a comprehensive context that leads to understanding and meaningful solutions that address the needs of all those involved. When participants are respected and the individuals responsible for causing the problem are part of the decision process and take responsibility for their actions in a meaningful way, the resolutions are more comprehensive and address the needs of everyone involved, as well as the issues that underlie the problem. An important difference between the traditional system and the peacemaking court process is that the resolution is determined WITH the court not BY the court.

According to the grant application, key members involved in this project are 22nd Circuit Court judge Timothy Connors, 14A District Court judge Cedric Simpson, project director Susan Butterwick, and Robert Carbeck, 22nd Circuit Court deputy court administrator and budget director. [.pdf of grant application] Connors, who has spearheaded this initiative, was on hand at the Dec. 4 meeting to describe the project and answer questions.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor, where the board of commissioners holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Swartz will replace current chief judge Donald Shelton, who has served in that position for four years. Because of his age, Shelton will be ineligible for re-election when his term ends next year. The state constitution requires that judicial candidates at the time of election must be younger than 70 years old. According to the press release, as of Jan. 1 Shelton will be presiding judge of of the trial court’s civil/criminal division through the end of 2014, when his term expires. He will also oversee the implementation of a new case management software system and the roll-out of e-filing.

Swartz has served as a trial court judge since 1997 and was chief judge from 2008-2009. He is currently chief judge pro tempore, a role that will be taken over by judge Carol Kuhnke on Jan. 1. She will also serve as presiding judge of the family division. That position is currently held by judge Archie Brown.

Other trial court judges are Timothy Connors, Darlene A. O’Brien, and Nancy Wheeler, who is on medical leave. Earlier this month, the court announced that retired judge Charles Nelson would be serving as a full-time visiting judge, taking on Wheeler’s docket.

The issue had arisen this summer, when commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3) had brought forward a resolution to give notice to the courts. She did that at the board’s June 5, 2013 meeting in a move that caught some commissioners by surprise, although for several weeks during earlier budget deliberations Ping had expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system. Voting in favor of initial approval on June 5 were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal initially were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Then at the county board’s July 10, 2013 meeting, when the item was on the agenda for final approval, the board had voted to postpone a final vote until Oct. 16. The rationale was that it should be coordinated with approval of the 2014 budget.

Ping had stated that her goal wasn’t necessarily to cut funding for the courts, but rather to be more transparent about where the money goes. Giving a notice to terminate the agreement would have given the board the option to end it.

The courts have historically been in favor of a lump-sum approach, rather than the line-item budget provided by most other units of county government. The courts operate under a memorandum of understanding with the board of commissioners. The board unanimously approved that MOU on Jan. 19, 2011, replacing one that had been in place since 1990. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding] The agreement states that the county will provide “lump sum” funding to the courts, allocated to: (1) the trial court – an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court; (2) 14A District Court; and (3) a portion of the county’s child care fund. The county does not have line-item budgeting authority, but the courts agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and to provide quarterly financial projections.

From the general fund, the lump-sum payment to the courts in 2013 totals $19,155,029 – with $13,353,110 for the trial court and $5,801,919 for district court. In addition, state funding for certain trial court operations – the Friend of the Court and child care fund – totals $4,977,047.

On July 10, Ping reported that chief judge Donald Shelton had provided a detailed document regarding the court’s budget, and that he had indicated a willingness to meet with commissioners and the administration about this issue. She said she wanted to give commissioners time to digest the additional information, and to hear the county administrator’s budget proposal for the general fund. County administrator Verna McDaniel and her finance staff presented a four-year budget proposal for 2014-2017 at the board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting.

During the Oct. 16 meeting, Dan Smith (R-District 2) moved to postpone action on this item until Dec. 4, but his motion was defeated on a 1-8 vote – as he was the only one voting in support. Shelton – who had stayed at the meeting until after midnight, when this item was considered – spoke briefly to commissioners, saying he welcomed an opportunity to continue the collegial relationship between the board and the courts, and he didn’t think a postponement would help with that relationship.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor, where the board of commissioners holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Charles Beatty Jr. attended the Sept. 4 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting to accept a resolution in honor of his father, Charles Beatty Sr. The board supports naming the Head Start building at 1661 LeForge in Ypsilanti – owned by the county – in honor of the late Charles Beatty Sr., who was influential in early childhood education. (Photos by the writer.)

For the site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road – the former juvenile center – staff have proposed a process that focuses on possibly using the site for affordable housing. A $100,000 planning grant is available to explore that option. However, several commissioners – while expressing support for affordable housing in general – wanted to look at a broader range of alternatives, including the possibility of selling the site, which some believe could be worth $2 million. After more than an hour of debate, the board voted to postpone action until its Sept. 18 meeting, directing staff to prepare an alternative resolution to consider.

Another lengthy debate focused on the funding mechanism for new trial court software, estimated to cost $2.3 million. The vendor of the current system went out of business several years ago, and replacement is critical. Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court, told commissioners: “If this [software] system goes down, our judicial system in the county simply stops operating.”

Some commissioners wanted a more formal mechanism to repay the county’s investment in the system, which includes nearly $1.3 million from capital reserves. The board eventually passed a resolution stating that revenues from the court’s electronic filing fees will be used to reimburse the capital reserves. E-filing fees – likely to be $6 per filing – are expected initially to generate only about $45,000 in revenues. The e-filing will start with civil cases, with phased roll-out to other cases, including criminal and probate. At some point, e-filing might become mandatory.

A range of other significant action items yielded far less discussion. The board gave initial approval to a new micro loan program for small businesses, to be managed by the Center for Empowerment and Economic Development. Also getting initial approval was a range of grants administered by the county’s office of community & economic development, as well as a resolution that would give blanket approval in the future to nearly 30 annual entitlement grants received by the county totaling an estimated $8.8 million, beginning in 2014. Currently, each of those grants requires separate annual approval by the board.

Commissioners also gave initial approval to strengthen the county’s affirmative action plan, as well as other nondiscrimination in employment-related policies. The primary change adds a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. Community activist Jim Toy and Jason Morgan, who serves on the board of the Jim Toy Community Center, spoke during public commentary to support the changes.

Other items receiving an initial vote from the board include: (1) adding three new full-time jobs for stewardship of the county nature preserves; (2) adding a new 10-bed treatment program for female teens in the county’s youth center that will create a net increase of 5.46 jobs; and (3) budgets for the county’s public health and community support & treatment service (CSTS) departments.

During the meeting, the board also honored the nonprofit Dawn Farm on its 40th anniversary, and recognized Bill McFarlane, the long-time Superior Township supervisor who recently announced his resignation due to health issues. Commissioners also supported renaming the county-owned Head Start building in Ypsilanti in honor of the late Charles Beatty Sr., a pioneer in early childhood education.

Topics that emerged during public commentary included a plea to urge state legislators to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law. Board chair Yousef Rabhi indicated his intent to bring forward such a resolution on Sept. 18 – similar to one passed by the Ann Arbor city council on Aug. 8, 2013. Rabhi also plans to introduce a resolution on Sept. 18 advocating for stronger cleanup standards of 1,4 dioxane – the contaminant in an underground plume caused by Pall-Gelman’s Scio Township operations. The Ann Arbor city council passed a resolution on Sept. 3, 2013 related to this issue.

Also on Sept. 18, a public hearing will be held to get input on a proposed increase to the Washtenaw County tax that supports services for indigent veterans and their families. The current rate is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. The new proposed rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The public hearing was scheduled by commissioners at their Sept. 4 meeting.

Platt Road Property

The Sept. 4 agenda included a resolution to create an advisory group to look at options for the county-owned Platt Road site in Ann Arbor, where the old juvenile center was located. [.pdf of Platt Road staff memo]

The idea of an advisory committee to help with the dispensation of this property was first floated at the board’s July 10, 2013 meeting, as part of a final vote on an overall strategic space plan for county facilities. The space plan proposed demolishing the former juvenile center and exploring redevelopment of the site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices. Details of how the advisory committee would be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, was an item to be worked out for a board vote at a later date.

Those details were brought forward on Sept. 4. The original Sept. 4 resolution called for a nine-member committee with the following composition:

• 2 county commissioners
• 1 Ann Arbor city councilmember
• 2 residents from the adjacent neighborhood
• The executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission [Jennifer L. Hall]
• The director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation [Bob Tetens]
• The director of the Washtenaw County office of community & economic development [Mary Jo Callan]
• The Washtenaw County infrastructure management director [Greg Dill]

The timeline called for at least three committee meetings with a consultant later this year to develop the community design process, followed by public workshops in January of 2014. A final plan with recommendations would be completed and presented to the county board by May of 2014.

The proposal was heavily oriented toward the option of putting affordable housing on that site, which raised concerns for several commissioners. A staff memo listed several elements that would be explored, including: (1) affordable rental housing by the Ann Arbor housing commission; (2) an affordable housing green demonstration pilot project; (3) connection to the adjacent County Farm Park; (4) ReImagine Washtenaw Avenue design principles; and (5) other identified community priorities, such as geothermal, solar panels or community gardens.

According to the staff memo, the planning work would be funded by $100,000 in grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, with funds to support the development of affordable housing. The money was part of a $3 million federal grant awarded to the county in 2011 and administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the resolution didn’t include the option of selling the land. Perhaps it makes sense to include a real estate agent among the list of advisory committee members, he said. He hadn’t heard commissioners reach consensus about ruling out the option of selling the land – either in part or in its entirety.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) expressed surprise about the resolution, implying that there must have been other meetings about this topic that he didn’t know about. He said he had supported the concept of looking at options for the property, which he believed could be valued at $2 million or more. He supported involvement of neighbors in giving input into the property’s future.

However, the resolution before them was more far-reaching than he had expected, Peterson said. He felt it was earmarking money for an initiative – affordable housing – that the board hadn’t discussed or approved. He expressed concern for the county’s overall budget, noting that there will be cuts made in the coming year.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) replied to Petersen, noting that the resolution passed by the board on July 10 had included an amendment to the language, in order to address concerns that Peterson had raised at that meeting – including an explicit statement that the board had ultimate control over what happens to the Platt Road site.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) had been integral in putting together this resolution, Rabhi noted, because the property is in LaBarre’s district. Rabhi assured Peterson that he hadn’t missed any meetings, and that this resolution was an evolution from the July 10 discussion.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) told Peterson he was excited by this community process. Smith wanted to understand Peterson’s concern: Was it that there aren’t sufficient options cited in the resolution? Peterson replied that the planning process is tapping into funding that hadn’t been approved by the board. He wondered where the money had come from, and whether it could be used for other projects.

Brett Lenart, OCED’s housing and infrastructure manager, reiterated information from the staff memo – that the funding came from a HUD sustainable communities regional planning grant. The overall grant is funding the Washtenaw Avenue corridor project and a range of other efforts, he said. The Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) committed $100,000 in matching funds. One component of those matching funds is furthering sustainable solutions for at-risk populations, he said.

Lenart told commissioners that the Platt Road site seemed like a good opportunity to marry a county asset with the affordable housing goals supported by the grant. It’s near the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, near public transportation and job opportunities.

2270 Platt Road – on the west side of Platt, south of County Farm Park.

Conan Smith clarified with Lenart that the funds must be used for planning. Smith then said he agreed with Peterson in that the resolution didn’t direct the advisory committee to explore a broad range of options. “We’re pre-determining the outcome for this site, with this resolution,” Smith said. “We’re going to angle it toward affordable housing in some way.”

Lenart replied that the staff is suggesting that the primary discussion for the site should focus on affordable housing. If these grant funds are used for planning, then there needs to be a good faith effort to advance the cause of affordable housing, he said.

Conan Smith noted that the board hasn’t discussed whether affordable housing is its priority for the Platt Road property. He said he shared Peterson’s concern in that regard.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he hadn’t known about this proposal, even though he’s a member of the county’s space committee. He also objected to having four directors on the advisory committee, suggesting that they could delegate that responsibility.

Sizemore asked what the $100,000 would be used for. Lenart replied that it would be used for a community design process, including fees for architects and consultants to run the public meetings and develop recommendations. Sizemore expressed skepticism about using that amount simply for planning. “I just don’t like the way this looks,” he said, to spend that much money just to tell the board what they should do with 13-14 acres of land. “If you’ve got that kind of money to throw around, then I think we’ve got a big problem.”

Lenart noted that if the planning funds aren’t spent at the Platt Road site, then the funds will be used for planning at other locations that might be suitable for affordable housing.

LaBarre reported that he’s talked to residents in these neighborhoods, and no one ever brought up the option of selling that site. This process is inclusive, he said, and he supported it. Commissioners won’t be obligated to act on the recommendations that will be delivered as the result of this process, he noted.

Brett Lenart, housing and community infrastructure manager for the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED). Seated next to him is Mary Jo Callan, OCED director.

Dan Smith stated his priorities for the property. He’d like to sell the portion along Platt Road, and reserve a portion adjacent to County Farm Park to make a greenway or park. He noted that 5 out of the 9 committee members, as proposed, are either commissioners or staff. If the board really wants diverse input, then they should get rid of some of the county representatives and include more residents.

Dan Smith also cautioned against asking citizens to do a lot of work on this committee, only to have it possibly ignored by the board. He felt commissioners should have a better idea of its priorities for the site, before asking an advisory committee to make recommendations.

Peterson said he didn’t mind exploring options or including citizen input. But it’s important that the board make sure the community receives the full value from that property, regardless of what is done with it. But the proposed resolution leads the county into the housing business, he said, and that concerns him. Peterson added that he doesn’t know what other affordable housing options are in the works, or what other planning efforts might benefit from this $100,000.

Rabhi read from the original July 10 resolution – specifically, LaBarre’s amendment that had been added to create the advisory committee. Rabhi also noted the additional language that had been included as a friendly amendment to address Peterson’s concerns at the time [italics include friendly amendment language]:

Be it further resolved that the board of commissioners create a nine-member Platt Road community advisory committee to review and develop a recommendation for the disposition of the county’s Platt Road site. The composition and charge of the advisory committee will be determined by the board of commissioners at a later date, provided however that the board of commissioners shall have the authority to ultimately determine the disposition of the Platt Road site.

Peterson said he’d given his trust when he voted for that resolution on July 10. He had assumed that names of people to serve on the committee would be brought forward. He didn’t know any other plans were in the works.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) indicated that she thought the committee would bring forward pros and cons for each option for the site, not just one recommendation. It seemed like the committee was being directed to lean toward one option, without exploring the full spectrum. Lenart replied that the intent is to present a concept for affordable housing at that site, that’s rooted in information and community input. He said if there’s no interest on the board in pursuing affordable housing there, then OCED would find another project that could use the planning funds.

Conan Smith floated the idea of amending the resolution to call for the advisory committee to deliver an initial high-level alternatives analysis, with a recommendation. Then the board could direct the committee and staff to implement the planning process for whatever alternative is chosen.

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion – Amendment

Dan Smith proposed amending the resolution to create more diversity on the committee – adding an Ann Arbor city council designee and three county residents, including one with real estate experience. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) objected to singling out Ann Arbor for additional representation. Although the land is located in Ann Arbor, it’s owned by the county – paid for by all county taxpayers, she noted. Yousef Rabhi proposed alternative wording, considered as a friendly amendment to Smith’s version, to add four slots to the committee for Washtenaw County residents, including at least one with experience in real estate.

Outcome on amendment: It passed on a 6-3 vote, over dissent from Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion – Final Debate

Alicia Ping asked additional questions about the planning grant. Brett Lenart explained that it couldn’t be used to plan exclusively for a park or commercial development – and that affordable housing had to be at least considered in good faith in order for the planning grant to be used.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Ping thought Ronnie Peterson had raised some good points, and she felt more comfortable doing a high-level alternatives analysis, as Conan Smith had proposed.

Andy LaBarre noted that the resolution passed by eight commissioners on July 10 – Rolland Sizemore Jr. had been absent – called for a nine-member advisory committee to review and develop a recommendation for the disposition of the Platt Road site. He sensed that there wasn’t support for the current resolution, but he hoped it wouldn’t cause them to “piddle away time on this unnecessarily.” If the board wants to do something with the site, they should make that decision relatively quickly, he said. Whatever they do, LaBarre said, he would advocate for involving residents near the site.

Yousef Rabhi asked how other funds from the $3 million grant were being spent. Lenart replied that the grant was funding planning efforts for the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, working to strengthen neighborhood groups and associations, helping new tenants at the Hamilton Crossing complex in Ypsilanti with literacy, budgeting and other life skills, and improving pedestrian crossings on the south side of Ypsilanti. The grant also had funded some of the work for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project, he said, and is paying for the Arts Alliance to incorporate public art into some infrastructure projects.

Rabhi clarified with Lenart that affordable housing must be considered in order for the planning to be eligible for this grant funding, but affordable housing doesn’t have to be part of the final recommendation. The key is that affordable housing will be part of the discussion, Rabhi said, along with other options. He added that no commissioner is opposed to affordable housing.

Peterson agreed, saying that the issue is the proper use of this grant funding. He noted that the eastern part of the county, which he represents, is the reason why this kind of funding is available to the county – because of the low income residents there. He hoped the board could establish a committee with no budget. He didn’t think this grant was the appropriate funding mechanism, and he didn’t think OCED was the appropriate department to handle this project. The facilities staff should be in charge, he said, noting that the county has policies and procedures for the disposal of property.

Rabhi then suggested tabling the item until the board’s Sept. 18 meeting. He asked Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, to work with commissioners and staff to bring forward an alternative resolution on Sept. 18.

Dan Smith moved to postpone the resolution.

Outcome: The motion to postpone passed unanimously.

Trial Court Software

At their Sept. 4 meeting, commissioners acted on two items related to a new case management software system for the Washtenaw County trial court.

Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County trial court.

The board was asked to give final approval to the selection of a new record-keeping software system for the court that’s estimated to cost $2.3 million. The Tyler Odyssey Case Records Management System will replace an outdated software system that hasn’t been supported by the previous vendor since 2005, when the vendor went out of business.

The original resolution, put forward at the board’s Aug. 7, 2013 meeting, had identified the following funding sources for this project: (1) a $551,998 refund from the state related to an unfinished pilot project; (2) $200,000 from an anticipated 2013 surplus in the trial court budget; (3) $700,000 from the county’s IT fund balance; and (4) $899,463 from the county’s capital reserves, to be repaid with any trial court surplus starting in 2014.

However, some commissioners weren’t comfortable with the funding sources that were identified, so an alternative resolution was brought forward during the Aug. 7 meeting that did not include references to funding sources. An amendment to that alternative resolution – made after considerable discussion and procedural maneuverings – stated that the board approved the selection of this software system, and directed the county administrator to develop a maintenance and implementation plan, and to identify funding sources by the time of the board’s Sept. 4 meeting.

The funding sources were identified in a separate Sept. 4 resolution: (1) a $551,998 refund from the state related to an unfinished pilot project; (2) $200,000 from an anticipated 2013 surplus in the trial court budget; (3) $300,000 from the county’s IT fund balance; and (4) $1,299,463 from the county’s capital reserves, to be repaid with any trial court surplus starting in 2014.

A staff memo accompanying the funding resolution also notes that an annual software maintenance and support fee – starting at $188,933 – will be offset by revenue from fees associated with all Washtenaw County trial court electronic filing.

Commissioners discussed the approach to funding for about an hour on Sept. 4 with Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked to pull out the funding resolution for a separate vote.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked about the maintenance funding. Beyond the fees from e-filing, how will the rest of the annual maintenance costs be paid for? Greg Dill, director of infrastructure management, replied that costs would be covered from the county’s IT maintenance fund.

In response to another query from Ping, chief judge Donald Shelton said that the e-filing fee is in addition to the regular filing fee. It’s estimated to be $6 per filing, with an initial annual projection of $45,000 in revenues. The e-filing will start with civil cases, with phased roll-out to other cases, including criminal and probate. Eventually, he added, it will likely be mandatory to file documents electronically. So those initial annual revenue estimates, which Shelton characterized as conservative, are expected to increase. All revenues from e-filing will be used to offset the annual maintenance costs. Revenues will increase as more documents get filed electronically, and savings from not using paper documents will also increase, he said.

What happens when the e-filing revenues exceed the maintenance costs: Who gets the extra revenue? Ping wondered. Shelton recalled that when he was mayor of Saline, someone pointed out that action being taken might create a parking problem. “I said, ‘Oh, I pray for a parking problem downtown every day,’” Shelton joked. He said it’s not the court’s intention to profit from e-filing, other than to cover costs to support the system.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) explains that her husband – attorney David Shand – showed her how he could access documents electronically from other county courts on his phone.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) pointed out that the previous resolution had indicated that e-filing revenues would be used to pay back the county’s capital reserves. Now, it’s flipped, he said – the e-filing is going to cover operating (maintenance) costs, and are not repaying the county’s capitalization of the system.

Dill said the funding model is very much the same as the original proposal. The county administration has talked to the trial court about reducing its operating budget by $200,000 annually, Dill said. Those reductions can be applied to repay the county’s capital reserves, which are helping to fund the initial cost of the new system.

Shelton added that this new system will enable the trial court to meet its targets for structural budget reductions. He pointed out that for eight years, the court’s software wasn’t supported by the vendor because that company went out of business. So during that time, the county didn’t pay annual maintenance costs. That’s almost $700,000 that wasn’t spent, he said, because the court has been “limping along in our Studebaker.” The court was able to do that because one of its employees was able to keep the system running. However, that employee is no longer working for the county. “If this system goes down, our judicial system in the county simply stops operating,” Shelton said.

Shelton noted that an estimated 40% of the county residents will come into contact with the judicial system at some point in their lives – for things like a divorce, or a child who’s in trouble, or a crime. Having a new system to help run the operation is a need, not a want, he said. It’s an investment.

Conan Smith said he understood the need. But his concern is about how that system is funded, given the myriad countywide needs. He’d prefer to see a fee schedule developed to cover the capitalization and operations costs of this new system. Smith suggested perhaps a $30 increase to the current $150 regular filing fees, beyond any charges for e-filing.

Shelton replied that the court is constrained by the state in terms of how much it can charge for filing fees. The state legislature sets those fees – for example, it costs $100 to file a lawsuit. There’s more flexibility in electronic filing fees, which are subject to negotiation between the state and the court, he said.

Shelton noted that he has pledged to reduce the court’s operating budget, which will be made possible by this new system.

Smith described Shelton’s pledge as “rock solid.” However, Smith added, the court’s leadership will change soon. [Shelton can not run for re-election because he'll be over 70 years old when his current term ends. The state constitution requires that judicial candidates at the time of election must be younger than 70 years old.] “Then we’re in a situation with folks who didn’t cut that deal,” Smith said. The priorities of a new court leadership might shift, so Smith wanted a formal agreement that lays out how the project will be capitalized from court funds.

Shelton replied that he can’t bind future judges any more than Smith can bind future commissioners. However, he added that he could speak for the bench in that when they make a commitment, they keep it.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) voiced concern that additional software upgrades will be needed in other county departments and in the county-funded district courts. He cited expenses associated with moving the dispatch operations from downtown Ann Arbor to the county’s Zeeb Road facility. Dill reported that staff is working on a 10-year technology plan, which would address Sizemore’s concerns.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) agreed with Conan Smith about paying back the county’s capitalization costs. Rabhi reminded Dill that they’d talked about using the e-filing revenues to pay back the county’s capital reserves – not to offset maintenance costs. Shelton clarified that the e-filing revenues won’t be coming directly to the court. Rather, Tyler Technologies will be deducting those fees from its maintenance bill to the courts – that’s why it made sense for the e-filing revenues to offset maintenance, he said.

Rabhi said the point is to build in a way that the court can reimburse the capital reserves, to offset the county’s $1.3 million investment. The resolution needs to include language that spells out how that will happen.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) introduced some new issues. He said he’s heard anecdotally that the new system isn’t needed, but Dill and IT manager Andy Brush have spent a lot of time looking into it, and he’d go with their recommendation. He also noted that the courts had chosen to set themselves up in a different way from other county departments, getting their budget as a lump sum that’s governed by a memorandum of understanding. Given that, he has difficulty approving $1.3 million from the county’s capital reserves to a unit over which the board has essentially no financial oversight.

Dan Smith said he appreciated Shelton’s commitment, but the board has experienced recent situations where there were misunderstandings about promises that were made “that got us into a whole lot of hot water.” What really counts isn’t what’s talked about at the board table, Smith said, “but what we actually vote on. We need these types of things in writing.”

Conan Smith pointed out that from a budgetary standpoint, there’s no cash available to allocate to the capital reserves. The court will receive an annual maintenance bill, minus the amount of e-filing revenues. “I’d rather see a much more solid, structured revenue solution,” he said.

Shelton clarified that the maintenance bill is covered by the county’s IT fund, and isn’t part of the court’s lump sum budget. So any reductions in that maintenance bill will be money that the IT fund doesn’t have to expend. Responding to a query from Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Shelton noted that the annual maintenance cost includes future upgrades.

Shelton again reiterated that with the new system in place, the court will be able to meet its $200,000 budget reduction target. Over six years, that $200,000 annual reduction will cover the county’s $1.3 million capital investment in the system, he said.

Shelton noted that all county boards in the state chafe at the independence of courts as a separate unit of government. The courts are not a county department, he said. However, he felt the relationship between the board and the courts in Washtenaw County was better than any of Michigan’s other 82 counties. And although the board doesn’t have absolute control over the court’s budget, he said, the court gives a detailed report about how its money is spent, so that the administration knows exactly what’s happening with the court’s budget, and why.

Shelton also highlighted a “performance dashboard” that’s posted on the court’s website, so anyone can view the fluctuations in filings and dispensations.

Conan Smith replied that his concern is to find a predictable funding source that doesn’t compromise the county’s other investment priorities. He noted that he’s been talking with Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, about the possibility of “social impact” bonds, as an example.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion – Amendment

Rabhi proposed an amendment to add a resolved clause to the resolution:

Be it further resolved that the offsets to the annual software maintenance and support costs created by the e-filing revenue will be used to reimburse the $1,299,463 of capital investment from the capital reserve fund.

After some additional discussion, Ping proposed an amendment to Rabhi’s amendment, adding this sentence: “Once the capital fund is reimbursed, additional offset funds will be allocated to the tech plan fund balance.”

Outcome on Ping’s amendment to Rabhi’s amendment: It was unanimously approved on a voice vote.

So the final version of the Rabhi’s amendment to the main resolution stated:

Be it further resolved that the offsets to the annual software maintenance and support costs created by the e-filing revenue will be used to reimburse the $1,299,463 of capital investment from the capital reserve fund. Once the capital fund is reimbursed, additional offset funds will be allocated to the tech plan fund balance.

Outcome on Rabhi’s amended amendment: Commissioners unanimously approved the amendment on a voice vote.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion – Final Vote

Rabhi then called the question, a procedural move intended to force a vote. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, noted that six votes are required in order to pass a motion to call the question.

Outcome on motion to call the question: It passed unanimously.

The board then voted on the main resolution, as amended, on funding of the Tyler software system.

Outcome: The resolution passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Trial Court Software: Final Approval

Both resolutions – the funding resolution, and the general resolution for the Tyler system that was given initial approval on Aug. 7 – were on the board agenda for a final vote later in the meeting.

From left: Greg Dill, director of infrastructure management, and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

There was additional discussion, generally repeating themes and information that had been covered earlier in the meeting. Conan Smith highlighted the fact that the county would be taking on an additional expense for maintenance that will be absorbed by the IT fund. He wanted to know what cuts would be made to the IT budget in order to accommodate that additional maintenance expense.

Greg Dill replied that as his staff looked at the mix of all IT needs throughout the county, they felt confident they could absorb the trial court maintenance costs. The overall IT funding, even with additional maintenance costs, is sufficient to take care of the needs of the entire organization, he said. Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, explained that part of the IT budget includes revenues from what’s called the “1/8th mill” fund, which pays for infrastructure needs. Not all of the IT funding comes from the county’s general fund.

Outcome on final approval for the funding resolution: It passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Outcome on final approval for the general Tyler software resolution: It passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent by Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1). He did not indicate why he voted against the resolution. He had voted in favor of it on Aug. 7.

Trial Court Child Care Fund

In another item related to the trial court, the board was asked to give initial approval to 2013-2014 state child care fund expenditures of $9,425,785 for the trial court’s juvenile division and county dept. of human services. About half of that amount ($4,712,892) will be eligible for reimbursement from the state. [.pdf of budget summary]

According to a staff memo, the child care fund is a joint effort between state and county governments to fund programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth. Part of this year’s funding will support a new 10-bed treatment program that will be housed in the county’s youth center facility, opening in November of 2013. From the staff memo:

The treatment program in its initial phase will exclusively provide treatment services to females aged 12-17 using an integrated therapeutic treatment model. The program will offer a short-term 90 day option as well as a 6 to 9 month long-term treatment option. The second phase of treatment programming will expand services to males aged 12-17.

The new program is expected to generate revenue from out-of-county treatment referrals.

The expenditures will result in a net increase of 5.46 jobs. A total of 10.46 full-time equivalent positions will be created, and 5 FTEs will be eliminated.

Trial Court Child Care Fund: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) clarified with county administrator Verna McDaniel that the county’s cost for this program is about $4.7 million. McDaniel stated that the funds are subject to the county’s memorandum of understanding with the trial court. Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court, clarified that only about a third of the funds are subject to the MOU. The MOU does not cover funding to the county’s department of human services or the youth center.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) wondered how the new treatment program fits into the county’s continuum of care. She also wanted to make sure that adolescents in Washtenaw County have access to the program.

Lisa Greco, director of children’s services for the county, explained that the new program would expand therapy treatment services that the county currently purchases from other providers. The program would involve the child and entire family, she said – it would be part of the entire continuum of care that the county provides.

Linda Edwards-Brown, the trial court’s juvenile and probate court administrator, noted that the program will initially serve only females, but the plan is to eventually expand to include males.

Brabec wondered how this program would be different from detention. Greco explained that there are parts of the juvenile facility that are secured, and other areas that are not secured. Activities in the new treatment program would take place in the unsecured areas, she said. There will also be a team approach to treatment and intervention.

Directing her comments to commissioner Dan Smith, Greco noted that all positions in the county’s youth center are 50% funded from the state child care fund. [Earlier in the meeting, Smith had objected to the resolutions on the agenda that added jobs to the county's payroll.]

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) pointed out that this program is built first and foremost for Washtenaw County residents. The county wants to create partnerships with neighboring counties and courts, but that’s not the program’s primary focus, he said. Secondarily, those services could be made available to residents outside the county.

Edwards-Brown noted that the trial court’s first response is to try to keep kids at home, and there are several in-home programs that are available. It’s the court’s last resort to place adolescents in a treatment facility.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) highlighted this project as an example of different county departments – including the infrastructure management group – working together.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the child care fund expenditures, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2). A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

Micro Loan Program for Small Business

A countywide micro loan program for small businesses was on the Sept. 4 agenda for initial approval. The resolution would authorize the county’s office of community & economic development to contract with the Center for Empowerment and Economic Development to manage this program. CEED already handles a smaller micro loan program focused on the eastern side of the county. [.pdf of CEED micro loan proposal]

From left: Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Micro loans would range from $500 to $50,000, for businesses that can’t get conventional financing. CEED has a $5 million borrowing capacity from the U.S. Small Business Administration, and expects to make $300,000 in micro loans in the next two years in Washtenaw County. The county would provide $45,000 out of revenues from levying the Act 88 millage. Of that amount, $35,000 would be used to seed a loan loss reserve fund and $10,000 would be designated for initial operating costs.

To be eligible for a micro loan, businesses must be based in Washtenaw County and have been turned down by two financial institutions for loans over $20,000. Other requirements include: (1) a business plan for businesses that are less than 3 years old; (2) a marketing plan for businesses that are 3 years or older; (3) two years of financial statements and tax returns; and (4) a personal financial statement.

The county is allowed to levy up to 0.5 mills under Public Act 88 of 1913, but currently levies a small percentage of that – 0.06 mills, which will bring in $696,000 this year. It’s used for programs run by the county’s office of community & economic development, and to fund the county’s MSU extension office. Act 88 does not require voter approval. It was originally authorized by the county in 2009 at a rate of 0.04 mills, and was increased to 0.043 mills in 2010 and 0.05 in 2011.

Last year, Conan Smith (D-District 9) of Ann Arbor proposed increasing the rate to 0.06 mills and after a heated debate, the board approved the increase on a 6-5 vote. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates, OKs Act 88 Tax Hike."] Increasing this tax was one of several revenue options that the county commissioners discussed at their Aug. 8, 2013 working session, as part of a broader strategy to address a projected $3.9 million budget deficit in 2014. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Eyes Slate of Revenue Options."]

The county has identified economic development as one of its main budget priorities.

Micro Loan Program for Small Business: Board Discussion

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked for examples of how this type of loan has been used successfully. Todd Van Appledorn with CEED responded that these loans are intended for entrepreneurs who have trouble getting loans through traditional sources, like banks or credit units. Types of businesses range from small manufacturers to retail shops or even consultants. Since CEED started its micro loan program in 1993, they’ve made over $5 million in loans, he said.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Generally, banks require two years of credit history before lending, Van Appledorn said, and new businesses don’t have that track record. Or some entrepreneurs have credit issues that don’t relate to their business – if they’ve had medical expenses, for example. The average micro loan made by CEED is $10,000.

Ping recalled that when she served on the Saline city council, a micro loan program was operated through the city’s economic development council. All the loans got paid back, she said, although not all the businesses were successful. A restaurant that’s been in downtown Saline for 20 years had received a micro loan. She thought it would be a great county program.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked how this program fits into the county’s overall economic development strategy. Tony VanDerworp with the county’s office of community & economic development explained that existing programs cover the high tech and life sciences sectors, as well as larger businesses. Now, OCED is working to find ways to support locally owned small businesses, he said. Efforts include this proposed micro loan program, changes to procurement policies, and support for the local food sector, among other things.

Responding to another question from Rabhi, Van Appledorn described CEED as an intermediate lender. The county’s program and seed funding will allow CEED to borrow through the U.S. Small Business Administration for the micro loans.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wondered what entity will decide who gets the loans. That’s CEED’s job, Van Appledorn said. What’s the success rate? Sizemore asked. For a smaller eastern Washtenaw County micro loan program, from July 2009 through April 2013, 14 loans were approved totaling $270,000, VanDerworp reported. No loans have defaulted.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) praised CEED, noting that it has received national attention for its work. He hoped to see the program expand even further.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he supported the activities, but was concerned about using taxpayer dollars to fund businesses that can’t get conventional financing. People start businesses in other ways, he noted, such as using their home equity, personal credit, or loans from friends and family.

Smith also pointed out that the loan committee meets virtually, and that’s a concern. The public should have an opportunity to see how their money is being spent, and he wondered whether these meetings have to comply with the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Van Appledorn said that CEED follows the SBA’s guidelines for this program, and has never had a problem in the past 30 years handling it this way.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the micro loan program, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

Increase in Parks Stewardship Staff

A resolution to create three new full-time jobs for stewardship of Washtenaw County’s nature preserves was on the Sept. 4 agenda for initial approval.

The positions include: (1) a park laborer with a salary range of $31,507 to $41,766; (2) a park associate/principle planner with a salary range of $40,253 to $61,195; and (3) a stewardship coordinator, with a salary range of $43,373 to $56,586.

The additional jobs reflect a change approved by the county board nearly a year ago. At their Sept. 19, 2012 meeting, commissioners voted to amend the Natural Areas Ordinance No. 128, which established the county’s natural areas preservation program in 2000.

Bob Tetens, parks & recreation director, and Meghan Bonfiglio, superintendent of park planning.

The change removed a previous restriction that only 7% of millage funds could be used for management or stewardship. The goal was to use $600,000 per year for management and stewardship. Of that, roughly $240,000 would be used for ongoing stewardship activities, and $360,000 would remain to be invested in a dedicated reserve for long-term land stewardship.

According to a staff memo, the county’s parks system manages more than 4,500 acres of land in 13 parks and 22 preserves. In addition to the 556 acres of property already “actively” managed in the nature preserves, the staff also have active stewardship responsibilities for another 372 acres of prime natural areas within the county parks system. Overall, staff has identified 1,868 acres – or roughly 42% of the system’s current total acreage – as core conservation areas.

Funding for these new positions would be paid for entirely from the countywide natural areas millage, which was initially approved by voters in 2000 and renewed in 2010. The current 0.2409 mill tax raises roughly $3.5 million in annual revenues, and runs through 2021.

Increase in Parks Stewardship Staff: Board Discussion

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) described it as the right move to make, reflecting the county’s value of protecting its ecosystem. He noted that the city’s of Ann Arbor’s natural areas preservation program has a budget of about $700,000 to staff a system about half the size of the county’s natural areas, so “there’s always more that we can do.” It’s a step in the right direction, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2), who serves on the county parks & recreation commission, pointed out that during this meeting the board would be increasing the county’s overall headcount by nearly 10 FTEs, including the increase to the parks staff. It helps that some of the positions will be paid for out of a dedicated millage – as is the case with the parks staff – but it’s still an increase in positions, he said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), who also is a member of the parks & rec commission, praised Tetens and the parks staff. He noted that the intent is to slow down the amount of acquisitions and shift to a maintenance mode. However, he also shared concerns in general about increasing staff size.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the staff increase. A final vote by the board is expected on Sept. 18.

Non-Discrimination Policy

At its Sept. 4 meeting, commissioners were asked to give initial approval to reaffirm and update the county’s affirmative action plan, as well as other nondiscrimination in employment-related policies. [.pdf of staff memo and policies]

The primary change adds a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

The resolution’s three resolved clauses state:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners reaffirms its intent to prohibit discrimination in Washtenaw County against any person in recruitment, certification, appointment, retention, promotion, training and discipline on the basis of race, creed, color, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, national origin, age, handicap, veteran status, marital status, height, weight, religion and political belief.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners shall strive to promote a workforce that welcomes and honors all persons and that provides equal opportunity in employment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs the Human Resources / Labor Relations Director to update the Affirmative Action Plan, as well as policies Prohibiting Discrimination in Employment, Sexual Harassment, and the County’s Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity to reflect the Boards commitment and reaffirmation described herein.

Non-Discrimination Policy: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, community activist Jim Toy directed his first comments to commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9).

From left: Jim Toy, Yousef Rabhi and Jason Morgan.

Toy recalled when he’d spoken to the Ann Arbor city council decades ago in front of then-mayor Al Wheeler, who was Smith’s grandfather. “I looked at the mayor and said, ‘Mayor Wheeler, I am totally intimidated because you look exactly like my grandfather,’” Toy said. He added: “I feel no such intimidation tonight.”

Toy thanked the board for its continued support of human and civil rights, and supported expansion of the county’s affirmative action plan and related policies. It has symbolic, political, psycho-social and personal weight, he said. The diverse components of human sexuality – sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation – “must receive stated protection,” Toy said. “Otherwise, we all are at risk of discrimination and harassment and assault, up to and including murder.” He ended his remarks by telling commissioners: “Namaste – walk in sunshine.”

Jason Morgan, a board member of the Jim Toy Community Center and director of government relations at Washtenaw Community College, also spoke in support of the changes. He appreciated the county’s support of LGBT protections and human rights protections. The county has been known for a long time as a leader in this regard. He noted that other supporters – including Katie Oppenheim of the Michigan Nurses Association – were there to urge commissioners to support the changes.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to give initial approval to the non-discrimination changes. A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

Funding for Office of Community & Economic Development

In addition to the micro loan program reported in this article (see above), several other items were on the agenda related to funding for programs managed by the county’s office of community & economic development, totaling nearly $2 million:

• $88,263 from the federal dislocated worker training (DWT) national emergency grant [.pdf of staff memo for DWT grant]
• $16,277 in federal funding for the Michigan Works! Service Center Operations [.pdf of staff memo for Michigan Works funding]
• $50,000 in federal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) employer-based training foundation funding [.pdf of staff memo for TAA funding]
• $287,860 in federal Dept. of Energy weatherization funding [.pdf of staff memo for weatherization funds]
• $274,792 in federal Emergency Solutions Grant funding. The total program budget is $412,188, which includes $137,396 of in-kind matching contributions. The program supports the Housing Access for Washtenaw County (HAWC) partnership between Salvation Army, the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County and the Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County. [.pdf of ESG staff memo]
• $516,156 in federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funds [.pdf of CSBG staff memo]
• $21,828 in discretionary funds from the federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) to provide free income-tax preparation for low-income residents [.pdf of discretionary CSBG staff memo]
• $703,214 in federal funding for a senior nutrition program, with a total budget of $873,372. Additional funding comes from a USDA reimbursement of $100,001 and in-kind contributions of $70,157. [.pdf of senior nutrition memo]

The board also was asked to give initial approval to a blanket resolution covering nearly 30 annual entitlement grants received by the county totaling an estimated $8.8 million, beginning in 2014. According to a staff memo, these grants are awarded on a reoccurring basis based on pre-existing state or federal allocation formulas. They require board approval as individual items, which “ends up consuming a significant portion of Board and staff time throughout a given year, as formula grants are on a variety of different fiscal years, and are awarded at several different points throughout the year. Furthermore, the piecemeal nature of the resolutions does not provide a holistic overview of the continuum of services provided to the community by OCED,” the memo states. [.pdf of staff memo regarding blanket grant approval]

There are several categories of grants that will continue to require a board vote, even if this blanket approval is passed. Those categories include:

• competitive grants;
• grants that are not based on pre-established federal or state funding formulas or entitlement formulas;
• new grants, or ones that have not been previously awarded to or administered by OCED;
• grants that would require a county general fund appropriation in excess of the amount approved by the county board in the budget;
• grants that would require a change in OCED position control;
• grants more than $100,000 or 10% more than the anticipated amount, whichever is greater.

Funding for OCED: Board Discussion

In response to a question from Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) about the weatherization grant, program coordinator Aaron Kraft clarified that the grant would fund 40 weatherization jobs in 2013.

Brabec also asked about changes to the senior nutrition program. Andrea Plevek of the OCED explained that because of sequestration and other funding constraints, OCED is working with partner organizations to streamline delivery of meals to senior citizens. Those changes include providing shared meal service at senior centers wherever possible, and reallocating financial resources to local programs based on both demand for service and need. Partners that provide both shared-meal service and home delivery are the Ann Arbor housing commission (Baker Commons); Chelsea Senior Center; Dexter Senior Center; and Northfield Senior Center.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who serves as the board’s representative to the Area Agency on Aging 1-B, asked if there was anything beyond sequestration happening at the federal level, that the county should be aware of. Plevek replied that the state agencies, which pass through federal funding to the county, have prioritized homebound meal delivery. She wasn’t aware of any other action at the federal level.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked for a report on the overall impact of federal sequestration. The county receives a lot of federal dollars, he noted, and he’s very concerned about the impact. It’s crucial to know as the administration develops its next budget, Peterson said, because the board will need to decide whether departments that are losing federal funding will get more support from the county to make up the shortfall.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’d work with department heads to pull that information together. LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working sessions, said he’d be willing to dedicate an upcoming session to that topic.

Outcome: All OCED items were given initial approval, with final votes expected at the board’s Sept. 18 meeting.

Hearing for Indigent Veterans Services Tax Hike

Commissioners were asked to set a public hearing for Sept. 18 to get input on a proposed increase to the Washtenaw County tax that supports services for indigent veterans and their families.

Michael Smith, director of the county’s department of veterans affairs, talks with commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The current rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. The new proposed rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues.

The county is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Increasing this tax was one of several revenue options that the county commissioners discussed at their Aug. 8, 2013 working session, as part of a broader strategy to address a nearly $4 million projected budget deficit in 2014. See Chronicle coverage: “County Board Eyes Slate of Revenue Options.”

There was no discussion on this item. In addition to the public hearing, the board is expected to vote on the tax hike on Sept. 18.

Outcome: Commissioners set the Sept. 18 public hearing on an increase in the millage to pay for indigent veterans services.

CSTS Budget

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to the 2013-14 budget for the community support and treatment service (CSTS) department, from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The $34.96 million budget includes $29.598 million in revenue from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), which contracts with CSTS to provide services for people who are mentally ill and developmentally disabled. Other revenue comes from the Haarer bequest ($165,192), a contract with the county sheriff’s office ($246,846), smaller contracts with other entities, and fee-for-service billing. [.pdf of CSTS budget]

The budget calls for putting six full-time positions and two part-time jobs on “hold vacant” status. Those positions are currently unfilled.

The resolution also authorized county administrator Verna McDaniel to approve a service agreement with the WCHO, which is a separate nonprofit that’s a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System.

CSTS Budget: Board Discussion

Discussion was brief. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked for an explanation about the changes that CSTS is undergoing.

Trish Cortes, WCHO director, reported that over the past fiscal year, the delivery of all direct services has been shifted from WCHO to CSTS. Now, CSTS provides all direct services, under contract with the WCHO. [Further explanation of these changes, and additional discussion among commissioners, took place at the board's April 3, 2013 meeting.]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the CSTS budget. A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

Public Health Budget

The Sept. 4 agenda included a resolution approving the public health department’s $10.796 million budget for 2013-14, from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The budget includes $3.553 million in an appropriation from the county’s general fund, and $243,226 from the department’s fund balance. [.pdf of staff memo regarding public health budget]

As part of the budget, the public health department is proposing a net increase of 1.5 full-time equivalent positions. That results from eliminating 4.5 FTEs and creating 6 new positions. In addition, 5 positions will be put on “hold vacant” status, effective Oct. 1.

The resolution also included a proposed fee schedule for vaccines and clinic visits. [.pdf of proposed fee schedule] The minimum fee is proposed to be raised from $30 to $40.

Public Health Budget: Board Discussion

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) noted that public health director Dick Fleece is retiring, and that provides a good time to look at possibly restructuring the department. He also expressed concern over the listing of salary ranges for new positions, rather than giving each position a set salary.

From left: Lefiest Galimore and Dick Fleece, the county’s public health director.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he agreed with Sizemore. If changes are going to be made, this is the chance to do it with minimal impact.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) pointed out that the staff memo refers to the impact of federal sequestration on the budget, and she wondered when more information would be available on that.

Fleece responded, saying the department had received more information since the staff memo for this resolution was written. The areas that he’d been concerned about were emergency preparedness, HIV/AIDS services, and the Women Infants and Children (WIC) program. The department has subsequently learned that the state of Michigan will absorb the cuts and maintain funding at the current levels, he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thought commissioners should at some point talk about recreating the public health board. Right now, the county board plays that role, he noted, but they lack specific expertise in that area “and we frankly don’t do our due diligence on things that [staff] could probably use a professional board for in public health.” There’s a wide array of resources in this community, he noted, including hospitals and the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) both agreed. Fleece said he’d welcome a public health board, though he noted the department does have an advisory committee that also serves as the health code board of appeals.

Fleece also pointed out that when he was appointed health director, he retained his position as environmental health coordinator, which saved the county the cost of filling that position. He thanked his management team, many of whom attended the meeting, as well as the county’s medical examiner, Jeff Jentzen, who Fleece said attended to show support.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the public health budget and fee schedule.

2013 Budget Adjustments

A budget adjustment resulting in a $654,670 increase in 2013 general fund revenues and expenses, bringing the total general fund budget to 103,218,903, was on the Sept. 4 agenda for final approval. [.pdf of 2013 budget adjustment chart]

An initial vote had been taken on Aug. 7, 2013, following significant debate and some failed amendments proposed by Conan Smith (D-District 9). His amendments would have restored over $1 million in funding to programs and departments that had been cut in previous budget cycles. During the Aug. 7 meeting, other commissioners expressed general support for his sentiments, but cautioned against acting quickly and not giving sufficient strategic thought to these allocations, which they had seen for the first time that night.

Conan Smith, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) had dissented on the vote giving initial approval to the budget adjustments. Board approval is required for budget changes greater than $100,000 or a variance of more than 10%, whichever is less.

The county’s finance staff cited several factors related to the adjustments, including the fact that property tax revenues are $2.3 million higher than anticipated when the budget was approved in December 2012. The county is also receiving $205,344 more in state funding than was originally budgeted, from state liquor tax revenues.

On the expense side, $551,998 will be used to help pay for the trial court’s new records management software system. Those funds come from a refund to the court by the state of Michigan. There will also be an increase of $102,672 in expenses due to a higher substance abuse allocation mandated by Public Act 2 of 1986, and related to the higher liquor tax revenues that the county received. Those funds will go to the county’s designated substance abuse coordinating agency.

The 2013 general fund budget also is not expected to need a previously planned use of $2.8 million from the fund balance.

There was no discussion on this item at the Sept. 4 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to 2013 general fund budget adjustments, over dissent from Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Naming of Head Start Building

The Sept. 4 agenda included an item to support naming the county’s Head Start building at 1661 LeForge in Ypsilanti in honor of the late Charles Beatty Sr. [.pdf of resolution honoring Charles Beatty Sr.]

Beatty was recognized for his work in education – he was the first African American school principal in Michigan. He served as principal of Ypsilanti’s Harriet Street School – which was renamed Perry School – until 1967, and was instrumental in setting up the Perry Preschool Program and the HighScope Foundation’s Perry Preschool Study. The study was influential in validating the importance of early childhood programs like Head Start.

From left: Former Washtenaw Head Start director Patricia Horne McGee and Maude Forbes, a retired principal of Fletcher and Adams elementary schools in Ypsilanti.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi, who read the resolution aloud, called it a “great day for Washtenaw County.”

By way of background, at its Aug. 7, 2013 meeting, the board approved a 10-year lease of the county-owned Head Start building to the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. [.pdf of lease agreement] The WISD is taking over management of the Head Start program from the county, which has administered it for over four decades. After considerable debate, the board made the decision in late 2011 to relinquish the Head Start program.

The county took out bonds to pay for the construction of the $2.29 million Head Start facility in 2002. Ten years remain on the bond repayment for a total of $1.66 million.

WISD will begin making payments in 2014. Annual payments vary, beginning with $166,862 by Oct. 1, 2014. [.pdf of rent payment schedule] After the final payment, the county would deed the Head Start building and surrounding 11-acre property to the WISD. During the term of the lease, WISD will pay for utilities and basic maintenance, but the county will be liable for structural issues with the building, including roof repairs, broken windows, and other repairs – unless the repairs are caused by WISD action.

WISD superintendent Scott Menzel attended the Sept. 4 meeting, but did not address the board.

Naming of Head Start Building: Public Commentary

Several family members and friends were on hand, and the resolution was presented to Charles Beatty Jr., who told commissioners that this father – also known as “Chief” – would be very proud that the Head Start building was being named after him, because the program had been very near and dear to his heart.

Michael Kinloch, an officer of Kappa Alpha Psi, spoke on behalf of that organization, noting that Charles Beatty Sr. had been a member of the fraternity and had helped on many community service projects. He thanked commissioners for honoring Beatty.

Maude Forbes said she was probably the oldest person in the room to have known Charles Beatty. She’d first met him as a third-grade student at Harriet Street School, where he was principal. In 1953 she graduated from Ypsilanti High School, thanks to his help. In 1957 she was looking for her first teaching job, and he asked her: “Where else would you teach, except with me?” She thanked the commissioners, HighScope, and Pat Horne-McGee, who had worked to make sure that Beatty was recognized. Forbes joked that if Beatty could get someone like commissioner Ronnie Peterson through school, “and have him end up being a recognized citizen and not end up in court, then you know [Beatty had] a lot of talent.”

Larry Schweinhart, president of the HighScope Educational Research Foundation in Ypsilanti, told commissioners that none of the organization’s achievements would have been possible without the generous partnership of Charles Beatty Sr. It’s fitting to name the Head Start building after him, because he’s one of the pioneers who made Head Start possible, Schweinhart said.

Naming of Head Start Building: Commissioner Response

Many commissioners praised Beatty and his lifetime achievements, and thanked his family and friends for attending. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) spoke at length about his personal experiences with Charles Beatty Sr., who had been principal at Perry Elementary when Peterson attended there. Peterson described Beatty as a great man who didn’t get the recognition he deserved when he was alive. He thanked Beatty’s family and Pat Horne-McGee for working to make this happen.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) noted that she attended Perry Elementary for kindergarten, not long after Beatty retired. She’d like to think that he was instrumental in creating the atmosphere in that building, even after he had gone.

Dawn Farm 40th Anniversary

The county board passed a resolution honoring the nonprofit Dawn Farm, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. [.pdf of Dawn Farm resolution] The Ann Arbor city council had passed a similar resolution at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting.

Dawn Farm president Jim Balmer and Janis Bobrin, who serves on the nonprofit’s board.

Dawn Farm offers both residential and out-patient services supporting recovery for alcoholics and drug addicts. The organization was founded in 1973 by Gary Archie and Jack Scholtus in a rented old farmhouse on Stony Creek Road in Ypsilanti. It has grown to include facilities in downtown Ann Arbor.

Dawn Farm’s president, Jim Balmer was on hand to accept the resolution, along with board members Janis Bobrin and Maggie Ladd. Bobrin is the former county water resources commissioner. Ladd is executive director of the South University Area Association. Also attending the Sept. 4 meeting was Charles Coleman, the nonprofit’s Chapin Street project coordinator.

Balmer told commissioners that he didn’t think this kind of program could have survived anyplace other than Washtenaw County. The community’s generosity accounts for the survival of Dawn Farm, he said.

Balmer invited commissioners to the Sept. 8 40th annual jamboree and fundraiser, noting that both founders will be attending. “There will be cake!”

Several commissioners praised Balmer and Dawn Farm for their work.

Honoring Bill McFarlane

Commissioners passed a resolution in honor of Bill McFarlane, the long-time Superior Township supervisor who recently announced his resignation due to health issues. [.pdf of resolution honoring McFarlane]

In introducing the resolution, board chair Yousef Rabhi described McFarlane as a friend to all the commissioners. McFarlane was unable to attend the Sept. 4 meeting, but Rabhi said it would be presented to him at his going-away celebration later this month.

Several commissioners praised McFarlane for his service over the decades, both in Superior Township and in countywide efforts like the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) and the county’s police services committee.

Township Sewer Contract Amendment

The amendment of a contract between Washtenaw County, Lyndon Township and Sylvan Township was on the agenda for final approval. [.pdf of original contract]

In February 2013, county commissioners voted to refinance debt for a sewer system in Lyndon and Sylvan townships, on the county’s west side. The resolution authorized the sale of refunding bonds that would be used to pay the remaining principal on existing bonds that were sold in 2004. That year, the county sold $5.115 million in bonds to help the townships pay for the sewer. Of that amount, $2.225 million remained to be repaid, prior to the refunding. The project built sewers at Cavanaugh, Sugar Loaf, Cassidy, Crooked, and Cedar Lakes. It’s funded through special assessments on property around those lakes and payments by the Sugar Loaf Lake State Park and Cassidy Lake State Corrections Facility.

In March 2013, the county received bids for the refunding, with the lowest bid from Hastings City Bank at an interest rate of 1.749838%. As a result of this refunding, only $695,000 in debt remains on this bond issue. Lyndon Township was able to cash reserves and redeemed all of their outstanding debt for this project.

The contract amendments given initial approval by county commissioners on Aug. 7 remove Lyndon Township from any responsibility for debt retirement and reduce the amount of debt for Sylvan Township. All other provisions of the contract remain in place until the bonds are paid off in 2022. Both township boards have previously approved these changes, according to a staff memo.

This sewer system is separate from a controversial water and wastewater treatment plant project in Sylvan Township. For more background on that project, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract.”

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave final approval to the contract amendment.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Budget Update

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who’s leading the budget process for the board, gave an update on activities related to developing the 2014-2017 general fund budget. All departments have been given letters stating the targets for budget reductions. The administration will be bringing forward a draft budget proposal to the Oct. 2 board meeting.

Budget task force meetings on priority areas are continuing. Brabec plans to bring the outcomes of those meetings to the board at a Sept. 19 working session.

The board will receive a third-quarter 2013 budget update from county administrator Verna McDaniel in November.

Communications & Commentary: Repeal “Stand Your Ground” Law

Three people spoke during public commentary urging the board to pass a resolution asking for the repeal of Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. Lefiest Galimore told commissioners that he had addressed the Aug. 8, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor city council with the same message. He called it a “vigilante law.” The city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti have both approved this kind of resolution, he noted. Galimore hoped the county board would do the same, to put pressure on Michigan legislators.

Blaine Coleman, wearing a sign that stated “Black Life Matters,” expressed some surprise that it was so easy to speak to commissioners. [Unlike the Ann Arbor city council, which requires people to sign up for the public commentary at the start of its meetings, there is no sign-up required at the county board session.] He said the law has become a “hunting license” against black men and black boys. “I think it’s perceived that way and I think it’s used that way.” The deeper problem for the past 400 years is that black life is not taken seriously or valued, he said. Rather than spending trillions of dollars on overseas wars, the U.S. government should invest in rebuilding inner cities like Detroit.

Lucia Heinold also urged commissioners to pass a resolution asking Michigan legislators to repeal this state’s version of the “stand your ground” law. She’s talked with a lot of black parents about the fears they have for their children. She hoped commissioners would join the movement to repeal the law. Heinold said she’s worked with the prisoner re-entry program and has come to admire sheriff Jerry Clayton and his work with the neighborhoods.

Later in the meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) indicated that he would be bringing forward such a resolution at the board’s Sept. 18 meeting. He said he felt that more discussion needed to happen, which he hoped would happen on the 18th.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) spoke in support of a resolution, but hoped that it would go further than simply calling on legislators to repeal the law – because that won’t likely happen, given the current composition of the legislature.

Communications & Commentary: Human Services

Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, thanked commissioners for their support for human services, for coordinated funding, and specifically for the Delonis Center, a homeless shelter in downtown Ann Arbor that’s operated by the shelter association. She read a short statement about a man named Peter who used the services of the center and was able to become independent and live on his own again. Last winter, the shelter moved 31 people from its warming center or rotating shelter into housing. Another 51 people were moved into the residential program, she said, where nearly half of them were then moved into housing.

Communications & Commentary: Pall-Gelman 1,4 Dioxane Plume

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) mentioned the ongoing cleanup of the 1,4 dioxane plume. The environmental contamination is related to past activities of the former Gelman Sciences manufacturing operations in Scio Township. Gelman was later bought by Pall Corp. Martinez-Kratz noted that he serves on the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD), which is calling for better cleanup standards.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’s been communicating with Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere and Chuck Warpehoski, who co-sponsored a city council resolution on Sept. 3 related to this issue. Rabhi would like to bring a similar resolution to the county board at its Sept. 18 meeting.

Communications & Commentary: Miss America

Alicia Ping (R-District 3), whose district includes the city of Saline, reported that the Miss America pageant will be held on Sept. 15 in Atlantic City. Miss Michigan, Haley Williams, is from Saline, Ping noted, and she urged commissioners and the public to support Williams. The competition will be broadcast on ABC affiliates starting at 9 p.m.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge called on commissioners to seek out additional resources, including private foundation support and an override of the Headlee Amendment, to provide services to county residents.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Smith brought forward a proposal to allocate money from the general fund’s reserves to pay for previously cut social service programs, but the proposal didn’t win support from Ping or most other commissioners on Aug. 7. (Photos by the writer.)

Following an unexpected proposal from the floor and considerable discussion, commissioners gave initial approval to authorize a $654,670 increase in 2013 general fund revenues and expenses, bringing the total general fund budget to 103,218,903. [.pdf of 2013 budget adjustment chart]

Despite the better-than-anticipated revenue picture, the administration is still projecting a deficit of $3.9 million for next year’s 2014 budget.

Generally, mid-year budget adjustments are recommended by staff and are typically dispatched with minimal discussion. However, a proposed amendment by Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9) would have transferred money from the general fund’s unearmarked reserves to restore over $1 million in funding to programs that had been previously cut. He argued that restoring this funding was possible in light of $2.3 million in higher-than-expected property tax revenues this year.

Several commissioners expressed general support for Smith’s intent, but cautioned against acting quickly and not giving sufficient strategic thought to these allocations. They had seen the proposal for the first time that night. Smith argued that he had asked for the budget adjustment resolution to be pulled from the agenda prior to the meeting, because he had wanted more time for discussion. Chastising other commissioners for not taking action to spend the unanticipated revenues, Smith noted that the board had identified human services as a priority, but was instead funding things like software and facilities. He told commissioners it was “one of the worst nights I’ve ever had on this board.”

The board voted down his proposal, but then postponed a final vote on the overall budget adjustments until its Sept. 4 meeting. Several commissioners indicated an interest in working with Smith to address some of his concerns before then.

The 2013 budget was also a highlight during a second-quarter update by the county’s financial staff, who reported that they’re now expecting a $245,814 general fund surplus for the year. In addition, the 2013 general fund budget is not expected to need a previously planned use of $2.8 million from the fund balance. [.pdf of 2Q budget presentation]

In other business, commissioners held a lengthy debate over a resolution for a new case management software system for the Washtenaw County Trial Court that’s estimated to cost $2.3 million. An original resolution had outlined funding sources for the project. However, prior to the meeting some commissioners expressed concern about the use of capital reserves to help fund the purchase, so an alternative resolution was brought forward at the meeting that did not include the references to funding sources.

However, Dan Smith (R-District 2) objected to passing a resolution that approved the purchase but did not include a funding plan. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was concerned that there had been no clear source of funding identified for the system’s annual licensing fee, estimated at $188,933.

An amendment to that alternative resolution – made after considerable discussion and procedural maneuverings – stated that the board approved the selection of this software system, and directed the county administrator to develop a maintenance and implementation plan, and to identify funding sources by the time of the board’s Sept. 4 meeting. That amendment was not enough to win support from D. Smith and Ping, however.

The resolution received initial approval on Aug. 7, but did not garner sufficient votes for final approval. It will be considered again on Sept. 4.

The board also debated – and ultimately approved – two long-term leases: (1) the 10-year lease of a county-owned Head Start building at 1661 Leforge Ave. in Ypsilanti to the Washtenaw Intermediate School District; and (2) a 9-year lease with Dahlmann Apartments Ltd. for space in the City Center Building at 220 E. Huron in Ann Arbor.

Other action included approval to back up to $3.3 million in bonds to pay for five drain-related and “green infrastructure” projects in Ann Arbor, and authorization to amend a contract between Washtenaw County, Lyndon Township and Sylvan Township related to a sewer system in those townships.

Several grants were accepted during the meeting: (1) about $2.5 million in federal workforce development funding; (2) a $665,704 federal grant to pay for two outreach workers with the Washtenaw Health Plan (WHP), who will focus on increasing children’s participation in federal Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), known as children’s Medicaid; and (3) a $20,000 capacity-building grant from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation for work on the Washtenaw food policy council.

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau, was on hand with several representatives of the United Association (UA) Union of Plumbers, Pipefitters, Sprinkler Fitters, Steamfitters, and Service Technicians. The UA is holding its 60th annual training program in Washtenaw County from Aug. 10-16. It’s the 24th year that UA has held its training program here. More than 2,500 participants will generate an estimated $5 million into the local economy, Kerr said: “The UA leaves this community in much better condition than when they came at the beginning of the week.”

2013 Budget Adjustments & Update

The Aug. 7 agenda included a resolution from the county administrator to authorize a $654,670 increase in 2013 general fund revenues and expenses, bringing the total general fund budget to 103,218,903. This type of budget adjustment is not unusual during the year, and is typically dispatched with minimal discussion. [.pdf of 2013 budget adjustment chart] Board approval is required for budget changes greater than $100,000 or a variance of more than 10%, whichever is less.

The county’s finance staff cited several factors related to the adjustments, including the fact that property tax revenues are $2.3 million higher than anticipated when the budget was approved in December 2012. The county is also receiving $205,344 more in state funding than was originally budgeted, from state liquor tax revenues.

On the expense side, $551,998 was earmarked to help pay for the trial court’s new records management software system. Those funds come from a refund to the court by the state of Michigan. There will also be an increase of $102,672 in expenses due to a higher substance abuse allocation mandated by Public Act 2 of 1986, and related to the higher liquor tax revenues that the county received. Those funds will go to the county’s designated substance abuse coordinating agency.

County administrator Verna McDaniel also noted that the 2013 general fund budget is not expected to need a previously planned use of $2.8 million from the fund balance.

During a second-quarter budget update for 2013, the county’s financial staff reported that the county is now expecting a $245,814 general fund surplus for the year. [.pdf of 2Q budget presentation] Tina Gavalier, a financial analyst with the county, told commissioners that about half of the projected revenue surplus should not be viewed as structural, and instead comes from one-time occurrences. At this point, the fund balance at the end of 2013 is expected to reach $17.033 million, or 16.6% of general fund expenditures.

2013 Budget Adjustments: Ways & Means – Conan Smith Amendment

The item was first discussed at the board’s ways & means committee meeting, which immediately precedes the regular board meeting. Conan Smith (D-District 9) noted that the county would not need to use its fund balance as had been previously anticipated for 2013. So he wanted instead to use roughly $1.45 million of the fund balance to return funding to departments that had been previously cut, and that had tapped their own fund balances in the 2013 budget cycle.

From left: Commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), chair of the board’s ways & means committee, and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

He felt that restoring this funding was possible in light of $2.3 million in higher-than-expected property tax revenues. The programs he proposed funding were the sheriff’s office community corrections grants ($152,772), public and environmental health ($625,060) and workforce development ($650,000). His proposal, presented from the floor, had been seen by county staff for the first time just a few hours before the meeting started, according to several staff members.

Smith argued that these units deliver direct services to residents and rely on those fund balances. Public health, for example, sometimes needs its fund balance for emergencies, he said. He characterized his proposal as reimbursing the fund balances for these departments.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked why the board should do this now, rather than wait and incorporate these suggestions into the upcoming budget that’s being developed for 2014. Smith replied that the adjustments he’s proposing aren’t structural – he’s simply looking at 2013 and the surplus revenue that the county is receiving this year. He said his goal is to ensure that these departments don’t draw down their reserves, but instead use money that’s available through tax revenue that the county is getting in 2013. He noted that the office of community & economic development (OCED) was planning to use $650,000 from its fund balance to pay for an upcoming department move out of the Annex building. Restoring money to OCED will allow it to keep those reserves for future needs, including direct services to residents, he said.

In response to a question from Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), county administrator Verna McDaniel said she didn’t know how Smith had arrived at the figure of $625,060 for public and environmental health. She reported that about $604,000 in structural reductions had been made in public and environmental health for the 2012 and 2013 budgets. If Smith’s changes are approved, she said, it would actually add $625,060 to the projected 2014 deficit of $3.9 million.

Sizemore wondered why the board would give money back to departments, when the county is facing a deficit and might have to make cuts within the next few months. “Why are we in a hurry about doing this tonight?” he asked.

McDaniel pointed out that if Smith’s amendment were approved, the money would be taken from unearmarked reserves in the county’s fund balance. She reminded commissioners that the original cuts had been structural.

Finance director Kelly Belknap stated that the sheriff’s office had decided to use fund balance for the 2012 and 2013 budget, but the $604,000 in structural reductions for public and environmental health had been a cut in the general fund appropriation to that department, not the department’s fund balance. The department had planned to use about $152,000 from its fund balance as part of the 2012-2013 budget. She also was unaware of how Smith had come up with the $625,060 figure.

Smith argued that when the board approved the current budget, it included a decrease in the fund balance for public and environmental health from $1.9 million to $1.3 million. He felt that was a good decision, because it reflected his own values of using reserves to provide services rather than cutting those services. But now that the county has additional revenue, he said, the county should restore the department’s fund balance.

McDaniel pointed out that Smith’s action would result in spending down the county’s unearmarked reserves in its fund balance. At this point, she said, the county won’t need to tap its fund balance for 2013, although the year isn’t over yet. But she noted that whatever is spent beyond what’s already in the budget – including Smith’s proposal to return money to these departments – will come out of the general fund reserves.

That’s right, Smith replied. But he noted that when the board passed the original budget, it intended to spend money from the county’s unearmarked reserves. “We’re just doing what we budgeted,” he said. And actually, they’d be spending less of the reserves than they had originally planned, he argued.

Belknap pointed out that the 2012 and 2013 budgets were developed in the summer of 2011. At the end of 2012, the fund balance for public and environmental health had actually grown to $2.051 million. She noted that part of that increase reflected the fact that the public health and environmental health departments had merged. For 2013, the projected use of that department’s fund balance is almost $143,000, she noted.

Dick Fleece, the county’s public health director, reported that there was an unusually high number of retirements at the end of 2011, and those positions were kept unfilled. That saved money for the department without reducing direct services, he said. Fleece added that the upcoming budget for 2014 will include the use of about $243,000 in the department’s fund balance. Smith expressed skepticism that having fewer employees doesn’t impact service delivery.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Smith then suggested reducing his proposed $625,060 return to public and environmental health to $386,000. That would cover the department’s previous use of fund balance and proposed use for the coming year, he said.

This change was considered a friendly amendment.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) weighed in, saying that Smith’s overall proposal was new information to him. For the 2012 and 2013 budgets, the county had made about $17 million in cuts, he noted. Other departments didn’t use their fund balances to meet their targeted budgets, he said, so Smith’s proposal would be returning money to departments that didn’t make structural cuts, but used their fund balances instead. If the money is going to be reallocated now, shouldn’t the entire county operation be considered? Rabhi asked.

LaBarre agreed with Smith’s intent, but said he wasn’t able to follow all of the process from the board table in terms of the broader implications of this action. “I’m thoroughly confused,” he said, and he asked Smith to talk about how this decision hits into the county operations as a whole, and how it fits with the county’s budget principles.

Smith replied that the board’s previous set of budget principles prioritized human services and public safety. His proposal addresses those units that dipped into their fund balances, he said. The county received surplus revenues, so reallocating those revenues is aligned with the county’s values, Smith argued.

Smith said his original hope was that the board wouldn’t take up the budget adjustment item that night. He suggested tabling the item and having a broader discussion of how to allocate the $2.4 million surplus. [The property tax surplus, according to county finance staff, is $2.3 million. An additional $100,000 in revenue surplus comes from fees and other sources.] LaBarre indicated support for that approach.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, said that procedurally the budget adjustments resolution could be adjourned to a date certain.

LaBarre moved to adjourn the item until the board’s Sept. 4 meeting.

Sizemore wanted to move it back even later, saying the board needed more time. Rabhi expressed concern that the delay would affect the staff’s ability to do county business. He felt the board should act on the budget adjustments that night.

Outcome on motion to adjourn the budget adjustments to Sept. 4: The motion failed on a 4-5 vote, with dissent from Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) then called the question to end debate and force a vote on Conan Smith’s amendment to the budget adjustments resolution.

Outcome on calling the question: The motion passed on a 6-3 vote, over dissent from Brabec, Sizemore and C. Smith.

The board then immediately voted on C. Smith’s amendment to the budget adjustments.

Outcome on C. Smith’s amendment: The amendment failed on a 3-6 vote, with support only from C. Smith, D. Smith and Peterson.

2013 Budget Adjustments: Ways & Means – Dan Smith Amendment

Saying “since this was so much fun, I think we should do it again,” Dan Smith proposed an amendment to strike $551,998 in the expenditure column. That amount was an adjustment that the administration had proposed to pay for the trial court software. Since the board hadn’t yet decided how to fund that software purchase, D. Smith didn’t think the budget adjustment should include that amount. The motion was supported by Conan Smith.

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that the $551,998 check had already arrived from the state as a refund to the trial court. It’s been recorded as revenue, so if there’s no expenditure line, “the budget won’t balance,” she said.

Alicia Ping wondered why the money couldn’t be put into the general fund’s fund balance, rather than being returned to the trial court.

Tina Gavalier, a financial analyst with the county, noted that the $551,998 had been deposited into the county’s tech fund, earmarked for the trial court’s software system. Approving the proposed budget adjustment would not mean that the board is approving the expenditure for the trial court software, she said. That action would require a separate vote.

From left: Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

C. Smith suggested putting the amount into the “other revenues and reimbursements” line on the revenues side, and in the general fund’s unearmarked reserves line on the expenditures side – as adjustments to the 2013 budget. He proposed amending D. Smith’s amendment to that effect. D. Smith agreed with the proposal, calling it a technical adjustment.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. expressed frustration: “Why in the heck are we even messing with this? It’s the court’s money.” The trial court will eventually need that money for its software system, he noted. And if the county board doesn’t authorize the expenditure of that amount, it won’t matter what line item it’s in.

He noted that the meeting looked like it would last past midnight. “We’re having a lot of communications on things that we should have settled before we got in this room,” Sizemore said. “It seems like we do more talking in this room than we do outside this room to get some stuff done.” Chief judge Donald Shelton was the person who contacted the state to get a refund for the software system, he noted, so he felt that it was the court’s money. Sizemore said the board was “spinning its wheels.”

Ronnie Peterson asked several clarificational questions, noting that he trusted C. Smith and that Smith “always gets his way at the end of the day.” C. Smith replied: “Not tonight.”

Felicia Brabec wondered how D. Smith’s proposed adjustment would impact the county’s lump sum agreement with the trial court. “That would be open for discussion,” replied Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director. Brabec clarified with Belknap that the $551,998 had originally been paid to the state out of the trial court’s lump sum budget. So the amount that was refunded by the state was still considered part of the trial court’s lump sum budget.

Dan Dwyer, the trial court administrator, stressed that the $551,998 is part of the trial court’s budget. “I certainly didn’t come prepared to talk about what might happen under some crazy scenarios,” he added. Until he talked to Shelton, Dwyer didn’t feel like he could answer any questions other than to say the money is part of the trial court’s budget. “I’m not certain the board has the authority to remove that money out of my budget.” But the court won’t be spending it on anything other than a new case management system, he said.

Ping wondered why the board was even discussing this. “If it’s their money, it’s their money,” she said. Belknap explained that technical adjustments like this are required for auditing purposes. The money might be part of the lump sum agreement, she said, but these adjustments are still needed to account for the money, because the trial court budget is part of the overall general fund.

At this point Andy LaBarre called the question to end debate and force a vote on C. Smith’s amendment to D. Smith’s amendment, which would move $551,998 into the line item for unearmarked reserves.

Outcome on calling the question: It passed, over dissent from Sizemore.

Outcome on C. Smith’s amendment to D. Smith’s amendment: It failed on a 4-5 vote, with support only from C. Smith, D. Smith, Ping and Rabhi.

The board then considered Dan Smith’s original amendment, to strike the $551,998 from the expenditure side. Verna McDaniel pointed out that since Conan Smith’s amendment was rejected, then passing D. Smith’s amendment would create an unbalanced budget.

D. Smith disputed whether it would create an unbalanced budget, saying his intent is to not make the expenditure. “Our budget would be equally unbalanced if I got out my checkbook tonight and wrote a check to Washtenaw County government,” he said. The county regularly receives additional revenue that it doesn’t anticipate, and eventually accounts for that. He contended that his amendment simply removes the amount as an expenditure. The budget will eventually be reconciled, he noted.

Rabhi called the question on D. Smith’s amendment.

Outcome on calling the question: It passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent from Martinez-Kratz.

Outcome on D. Smith’s amendment: It failed on a 3-6 vote, with support only from D. Smith, C. Smith and Ping.

At the end of the ways & means committee meeting, the board took a vote on giving initial approval to the 2013 budget adjustments.

Outcome on 2013 budget adjustments (initial approval): The resolution passed on a 6-3 vote, over dissent from D. Smith, C. Smith and Ping.

2013 Budget Adjustments: Regular Board Meeting

When the board considered the 2013 budget adjustments for a final vote at the regular board meeting – which immediately followed the ways & means committee meeting – Conan Smith spoke at length, chastising the other commissioners for not taking action to spend the unanticipated revenues.

“I’m sitting over here and I’m having one of the worst nights I’ve ever had on this board,” he began. The county has taken in almost $3 million in new revenues, he noted, but the only expenditure the board considered that night was on software. And last month, they voted to spend $5 million on facilities. “But the human services? The things that the people need? We’re not going to lift a finger for,” Smith said.

He noted that the board has talked about building the general fund’s fund balance, but not about using the surplus to help people who are struggling. Smith said he’s been on the board for 8.5 years, and there has never been a growing budget until now. “I’ve always had to lead cut budgets, that were real cut budgets because we didn’t have the money coming in,” he said. “And this year it’s different.” The tax base grew, but the board isn’t going to use that money to help people, he said. “I just can’t accept that today. I just can’t believe it.”

Smith talked about cuts that had been made for the 2013 budget, including community corrections grants, public health and programs for the elderly and homeless. He said he spent two years as chair on the workforce development and community action boards. “I had to walk them through cutting $750,000 out of workforce development that goes to help people find employment,” he said.

The county board had the opportunity to restore funding to these programs that night, Smith said, “to actually help real people. When somebody’s heat is getting shut off in December of 2013, or if someone loses their job and comes to the county for services, he said, “remember the vote we took at ways & means tonight.” Until that vote, he said, he had believed that commissioners held human services as a high priority.

He then proposed an amendment, this time increasing the proposed spending to $1.743 million. His amendment proposed allocating funds from the general fund reserves into community corrections ($152,000); public and environmental health ($386,000); workforce development ($754,000); programs for the elderly, people facing homeless and those in need of utility assistance ($252,000); and housing programs ($199,000).

Other commissioners again expressed general support for Smith’s sentiments, but – as they had earlier in the evening – cautioned against acting quickly and not giving sufficient strategic thought to these allocations, which they had seen for the first time that night.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. agreed with Smith in concept, but said each commissioner has their own priorities. His priority is to coordinate youth programs within the county, because right now, services are being duplicated, Sizemore said. Instead of just voting on Smith’s proposal, the board needs to look at all the county’s programs, he added.

Felicia Brabec told Smith she was struggling with this issue. She agreed that human services are crucial, but the board has also been talking about the importance of being strategic in how to support those services. Are these the best programs to which the board should restore funding? Brabec supported the idea of allocating more resources, “but I don’t want to do it in a rushed way.”

From left: Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Jason Morgan, director of government relations at Washtenaw Community College.

Andy LaBarre asked Smith why there’s a need to make these funding decisions now, instead of in the broader budget context for the coming year. LaBarre said Smith had made one of the most compelling verbal arguments he’s heard in person for funding these programs. “It genuinely made me feel somewhat rotten for not doing it earlier,” he said. But if the board makes that decision now, LaBarre added, “I feel like we’re setting ourselves up for perhaps problems in just a few months.”

Smith replied that this action relates to the 2013 budget, not the 2014 budget that’s being developed. “We have needs today,” he said. It’s the immediate human need that Smith said he wanted to address – people who are homeless, who are jobless, and who could be helped by county services.

Smith said he respects the need to budget strategically. “If there’s anybody at the board who’s been fierce about that, it’s me,” Smith said. At ways & means, he had asked to restore the reserves for three departments, Smith noted, “but I couldn’t get that vote. So I want to make it real. This is what we’re talking about – people’s lives.”

In response to a question from Ronnie Peterson, county administrator Verna McDaniel said that Smith’s proposal would result in variances that would impact the 2013 budget by making transfers from the general fund’s unearmarked reserves.

Peterson indicated that he shared Smith’s concerns, but wanted more time to discuss it in the context of the 2014 budget.

Yousef Rabhi said he agreed with Smith’s intent. When the county gets additional revenues, the tendency is to spend it all, he noted. But the decision needs to be made within the overall budget process for 2014 through 2017, he said. Rabhi understood the immediacy of the needs, but “as responsible stewards, we need to make sure that we’re doing this in a responsible way.” The county is more effective in the community if it’s a sustainable organization over the long-term, he said. If the board restores funding for these programs now, “we’re opening a Pandora’s Box,” Rabhi said, with the possibility that everyone comes back and asks for more money.

Public safety has also been identified as a budget priority, Rabhi noted, so the decision needs to be made in a broader context. What’s more, the year isn’t over, and a lot of things could happen that might change the current 2013 budget projection. He didn’t want to go down the road of funding “pet projects” for each commissioner. “We’re a more planful organization than that,” Rabhi said.

Smith had made a compelling argument, Rabhi added, but it’s not appropriate given the short timeframe and the fact that other commissioners haven’t been engaged in the decision.

Brabec felt it would be a smarter strategic decision to consider the organization as a whole, and not be reactive. She wondered if Smith would be open to that.

Smith replied that he’d asked for this item to be pulled from the agenda before the meeting, “so we wouldn’t have to have this conversation, and you all decided not to do that.” He noted that LaBarre had made a motion to table the item until Sept. 4, but that motion was voted down at the ways & means committee. “I’m not the one saying ‘Don’t think about this.’ I was the one saying ‘Let’s think about this.’”

Rather than putting aside money to help the county’s cash flow or improve its bond rating, Smith said he wanted a conversation about how to allocate the surplus revenues. He wanted that conversation now, and didn’t want to wait until January to have it.

In response to a question from Peterson, Smith said he’s proposing to use money from the general fund’s fund balance. That balance stands at about $16 million. “Where the money comes from doesn’t matter,” Smith said. “It’s the impact on the community that matters.”

Peterson clarified with Smith that the previous reductions to these programs had resulted from cuts due to reductions in federal and state funding, as well as cuts to help balance the general fund budget.

Brabec noted that at any point, the board could decide to use the fund balance to support county programs. The decision didn’t have to be made that night. The decision isn’t tied to the budget adjustment resolution, she said.

The board then proceeded to vote.

Outcome on C. Smith’s amendment to the budget adjustments: The vote was 2-7, with support only from C. Smith and Peterson.

C. Smith then moved to postpone the final vote on the overall budget adjustments until the board’s Sept. 4 meeting.

Outcome on the motion to postpone: The board voted unanimously to postpone final action on the 2013 budget adjustments until Sept. 4.

Trial Court Software

Commissioners were asked to approve the selection of a new case management software system for the Washtenaw County Trial Court that’s estimated to cost $2.3 million. The Tyler Odyssey Case Records Management System would replace an outdated software system that hasn’t been supported by the previous vendor since 2005, according to a staff memo.

The board’s original resolution included a funding proposal for this system, from the following sources: (1) a $551,998 refund from the state related to an unfinished pilot project; (2) $200,000 from an anticipated 2013 surplus in the trial court budget; (3) $700,000 from the county’s IT fund balance; and (4) $899,463 from the county’s capital reserves, to be repaid with any trial court surplus starting in 2014.

However, prior to the meeting some commissioners expressed concern about the use of capital reserves, so an alternative resolution was brought forward at the meeting that did not include the references to funding sources.

A lengthy memo from court administrator Dan Dwyer described the history of the current software and listed its shortcomings, including an inability to compute or apply late fees on unpaid accounts, and the fact that it does not support electronic filing or online access to case information by the public. [.pdf of Dwyer's memo] The trial court was involved in a pilot project with the state of Michigan to develop a new records management system – but that project was not completed and the trial court pulled out of it in February 2013. The trial court subsequently received a refund from the state for money that the court had spent on that pilot project.

A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in April 2013, and four proposals were received. Tyler Technology’s Odyssey case management system was selected based on a range of criteria, according to Dwyer, including the firm’s stability, experience, and its approach to implementation and project management. The firm’s annual maintenance cost of $188,933 was the lowest of the two qualified bidders.

The trial court is an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court. It also includes, as of July 1, a new specialized business court. The trial court’s chief judge is Donald Shelton.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion – Ways & Means

The item was first considered during the board’s ways & means committee meeting, which immediately precedes the regular board meeting. Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he didn’t see the point of voting on the item if no funding source is identified. He suggested holding the item until funding details are worked out.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who chairs the board of commissioners.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) replied that the intent is to recognize the court’s request and need, and acknowledge that the system from Tyler Technology was the one selected. However, the funding mechanism needs to be revisited to find the best way to fund it, he said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) echoed D. Smith’s concern about approving the item without a plan for funding. She noted that there had been some plans brought forward in the past about improving roads, but the board didn’t act on those plans because there was no funding identified. She indicated that the board should be consistent in its approach.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) told commissioners that he bore some responsibility for extracting the mention of funding from the resolution. He said he’d raised some of his concerns “admittedly late in the game.” Rather than derail the whole project, he said, the revised resolution is intended to provide another month to work out the funding details. He felt confident that the county staff will be able to produce a funding alternative within that time.

Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management, said that if commissioners approved the resolution, he’d consult with county administrator Verna McDaniel and finance director Kelly Belknap to come up with appropriate funding options. He said the staff can continue to work with the vendor as well, developing timelines and implementation. C. Smith urged commissioners to support it, and not to vote against it “because of my last-minute machinations on it.”

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) didn’t have a problem either way – voting that night, or waiting – but he wanted to make sure the current resolution wouldn’t create a problem for the trial court. Sizemore observed that chief judge Don Shelton seems to feel strongly about the project.

Dan Dwyer, the trial court administrator, said Tyler Technology can deliver the system in a short timeframe, but court officials would appreciate the board taking an initial step on this project. Rabhi noted that if the board wanted to, it could vote on the original resolution, which included a funding proposal. It might not be the best funding mechanism, he added, and that’s why it was extracted from the resolution. “I understand the weird dynamic here,” Rabhi said.

C. Smith suggested that the resolution could be amended to state that the board approves the selection of Tyler, and directs staff to come up with a project plan and budget to be presented on Sept. 4.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) joked that he didn’t want to be held in contempt of court. “I don’t want Judge Shelton calling me tonight,” he said, alluding to a previous meeting when the board’s consideration of eliminating the trial court’s lump sum agreement had resulted in Shelton calling some commissioners during and after the meeting.

But Peterson pointed out that this was a rare approach – to approve a project but not its funding. He was concerned about it setting a precedent, and noted that the actual costs would likely be more than the $2.3 million mentioned in the resolution. Dill replied that he would bring back an itemized list of costs for the “total cost of ownership,” including the costs for the software, implementation, and annual licensing fees. The $2.3 million amount doesn’t include the licensing cost, he said.

Peterson noted that the project will include ongoing legacy costs, which the board can’t control. Dill pointed out that any software would include an annual fee. Peterson said it was a budgeting issue, and that although he would vote for it that night, the issue would re-emerge when the board discussed the trial court’s budget later this year. “If you think this discussion is something, wait ’til the budget,” Peterson said. Saying he trusted Judge Shelton, Peterson noted that the question is how to keep the county afloat and fiscally sound, and he wanted to know what the county’s responsibilities are for this or any other agreement.

Dan Smith proposed tabling the item, which would allow the board to take it off the table later in the meeting after language for an amendment has been developed.

Outcome on the tabling motion: On a voice vote, commissioners tabled the item until later in the meeting.

Later in the ways & means meeting, the board considered whether to take the resolution back up off the table.

Outcome on taking the trial court software resolution off the table: It passed on a 5-3 vote, over dissent from D. Smith, C. Smith and Ping. Rabhi was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Rabhi returned to the room, saying he and C. Smith had crafted language for an amendment to the resolution, to resolve some of Ping’s concerns. The final resolved clauses would be amended to this language:

Be it resolved that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners approves the selection of the Odyssey case management system from Tyler Technology;

Be it further resolved that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners directs the county administrator to develop a project implementation, operations and maintenance plan and to identify funding options available to the board of commissioners to pay for the Tyler Technology Odyssey case management system, to be presented at the 9/4/13 ways & means committee and board of commissioner meetings.

The intent is to put an action item in the resolution, Rabhi said. The original resolution stated that the board approved the purchase “in concept,” he noted. The amended resolution would provide more concrete direction to the staff.

Ping asked whether the $2.31 million mentioned in the resolution includes the annual licensing costs. No, Dill replied. He clarified that the amount for annual licensing is about $188,000.

IT manager Andy Brush reported that the $188,000 is already included in the $1.5 million annual IT maintenance budget for all software countywide. Every department contributes to that maintenance fund, as part of the cost allocation plan (CAP). Brush also noted that the court’s new case management system will include the ability for customers to do e-filing, which will generate revenue for the county. He characterized the $188,000 cost as a conservative estimate, since it will be offset by new revenue – an estimated $40,000 to $60,000 per year.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Ping said she remained concern that the board would be approving a project without a funding plan in place, and that the cost doesn’t include an increase of $188,000 in expenditures each year. She wondered whether that $188,000 would be paid for out of the court’s lump sum budget. “I’m not trying to get all up in the court’s business,” Ping said. But the board is worried about an upcoming budget deficit, and hasn’t yet figured out how to cover its pension and retiree health care liabilities. “It’s a little difficult to swallow, when I’m worrying about public safety out in the west side of the county,” she added. [Ping represents District 3, which includes portions of south and western Washtenaw.]

Ping wanted the funding strategy to include the annual licensing and maintenance costs, so that the board would clearly know how that would be paid.

Brush pointed out that the county hasn’t paid licensing or maintenance costs for the trial court’s current system for eight years, because the previous vendor went out of business. Dill told the board that his staff would bring back a funding strategy for this project.

Rabhi reminded commissioners that a funding proposal had been presented with this original resolution, but some commissioners had wanted to see an alternative proposal that reduced the impact on the general fund. He said anyone who’s interested in being part of that discussion should contact Dill.

D. Smith said he appreciated the effort to address concerns via the amendment that Rabhi put forward, but he pointed out that there is still no funding strategy identified. So the resolution is either meaningless, he said, or it implicitly funds this project without any funding specified. “Neither of those alternatives are very palatable to me,” he said. D. Smith preferred voting on the item when funding has been identified, which is the board’s typical approach.

D. Smith called the question on Rabhi’s amendment.

Outcome on calling the question: It passed with unanimous support.

Outcome on Rabhi’s amendment: It passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent from Martinez-Kratz.

Outcome on trial court software resolution at ways & means committee: The board voted 7-2 to give initial approval to the trial court software resolution, as amended. Dissenting were D. Smith and Ping.

The board also was asked to approve adding the resolution to the regular board meeting agenda that same night, when a final vote could be taken.

Outcome on moving the resolution to the board meeting: It passed on a 6-3 vote, over dissent from D. Smith, C. Smith and Ping.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion – Board Meeting

When the item came up at the board meeting, the positions discussed earlier in the evening were restated. Alicia Ping again advocated for postponement. Yousef Rabhi reiterated that a funding plan had been presented, but staff is being asked to find a different way to pay for it.

Dan Smith noted that the board had previously postponed action on another item related to the trial court. [At its June 5, 2013 meeting, the board gave initial approval to issue a notice of intent to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system. On July 10, 2013, the board voted to postpone a final vote until Oct. 16, 2013.]

D. Smith noted that the software system is a huge expenditure, and over the next four weeks the board can get answers to its questions about funding. He moved to postpone the item until Sept. 4.

Outcome on postponement: On a 4-5 vote, the motion to postpone failed, with support only from D. Smith, C. Smith, Ping and Martinez-Kratz.

Ping again pointed out that the current resolution does not include a funding plan. What’s more, the funding plan that was in the original resolution didn’t address the annual licensing costs, she noted. “I think those are important things, so I’ll be voting no on this tonight.”

At least six votes were needed in order for the resolution to pass. That’s because the resolution had been forwarded for a final vote on the same night that an initial vote was taken.

Outcome on final approval for the trial court software system: The board voted 5-4 to give final approval to the resolution, but failed to achieve the necessary six-vote majority. Dissenting were Ping, D. Smith, C. Smith and Martinez-Kratz.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, clarified that the resolution automatically will be put on the Sept. 4, 2013 agenda for final approval, unless that board calls a special meeting to deal with it. There was no indication from the board that a special meeting would be called.

Budget Priorities

Felicia Brabec brought forward a resolution to amend the budget priorities resolution that the board had passed on July 24, 2013. [.pdf of budget priorities resolution] It’s not a content change, she said, but it simply adds four words to the first resolved clause, to reflect the outcome of the discussion on July 24.

The amended section states [italics denote added text]:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby adopts four ordered priorities to guide the development of the upcoming budget, which are as follows: (1) ensure community safety net through health and human services inclusive of public safety, (2) increase economic opportunity and workforce development, (3) ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for Washtenaw County residents, and (4) reduce environmental impact.

Dan Smith said he appreciated this amendment, but said he disagreed with the priorities. It would be simpler if public safety and justice were made the top priority, with the other priorities reordered after that.

Alicia Ping agreed with D. Smith, saying “these priorities aren’t my priorities.” However, she said that she realized the board would act on the priorities that the board sets, and she would work with the board on a budget that reflects these priorities.

Outcome: The board voted 7-2 to approve the amended budget priorities, over dissent from Ping and Sizemore.

Leasing Agreements

Commissioners took action on two leases at their Aug. 7 meeting: (1) leasing space for county operations in the privately owned City Center building in downtown Ann Arbor; and (2) leasing the county-owned Head Start building in Ypsilanti to the Washtenaw Intermediate School District.

Leasing Agreements: City Center

At its July 10, 2013 meeting, the board had approved a broad strategic plan for county facilities. Part of that plan called for relocating the office of community and economic Development (OCED), office of infrastructure management, and the public defender’s office out of their current space in the county Annex building at 110 N. Fourth Ave.

The lease at City Center, owned by Dahlmann Apartments. Ltd., is for office space on the fifth and second floors of the City Center for the public defender and office of infrastructure management. The City Center building is located at 220 E. Huron in Ann Arbor.

The county will pay $333,037 for the first year, with 3% increases each year after that. The term of the lease is nine years and five months, starting Sept. 1, 2013. [.pdf of lease agreement]

Leasing Agreements: City Center – Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he was happy to see an early termination option in the lease agreement, which would allow the parties to end the agreement after five years, on Aug. 31, 2018. He’s concerned that the county continues to lease facilities, but has talked with Greg Dill, director of infrastructure management, about these concerns. D. Smith said he understands that county-owned space is scattered around the county and isn’t suitable for this particular need. He hopes to move away from leasing, in general.

The City Center building on the southwest corner of Huron and Fifth.

Dill reported that since 2008, the county has reduced its operations by about 85,000 square feet of space, and most of those reductions were in space that the county had been leasing.

Dill pointed out that the county does not own a facility with 20,000 square feet that would meet the needs of the departments that are being displaced from the Annex. For example, the public defender’s office needs to be near the courthouse in downtown Ann Arbor. For the infrastructure management office, its partnership with the city of Ann Arbor means that the office needs to be near the computer server in downtown Ann Arbor. There’s more flexibility for the office of community & economic development, he noted, which will be relocated elsewhere.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked whether the rate was competitive at City Center. Dill replied that the staff was still negotiating the financial agreement, so he couldn’t provide all the details. But he described it as a very favorable lease, with flexibility in terms of the length of the agreement, and a generous build-out allowance of $450,000. It’s the very best option for the county, he said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked why the move was necessary. Dill explained that changes are being made to accommodate the county’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS) unit, which provides contract services to the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO). The WCHO will pay for moving the entire Adult MI program staff into the Annex; repurposing vacated space at 2140 Ellsworth for Youth and Family Services; and relocating all “service delivery” units to the 1st floor of the Towner II building at 555 Towner Street in Ypsilanti.

Most of the clients served by CSTS operations that are moving into the Annex live within 3-5 miles of downtown Ann Arbor. “We’re putting the services where the need is, instead of having services scattered throughout the county,” Dill said.

Peterson wondered if sufficient parking was available for clients. Dill said the plan has made allowances for parking. He noted that most of the clients downtown wouldn’t need parking, but that plans for staff parking have been made.

Peterson pressed the issue of parking for clients, saying that many of them were in financial difficulty and shouldn’t have to worry about parking when they come to get county services. That’s why he liked the Ellsworth facility, which was easily accessible. Dill replied that the Ellsworth location will be filled to its capacity with appropriate operations, and noted that most of the CSTS services in the Annex will be for clients who walk there. Peterson expressed some skepticism that people would walk to the building, and said they definitely shouldn’t have to pay for parking.

Peterson also wondered if the lease with CSTS would be parallel with the lease at the City Center, for the same duration. Dill replied that the agreement with CSTS was still “an open-ended conversation.” When he noted that CSTS is a county department, Peterson said “that’s beside the point.” CSTS, like other county units, will be paying rent on the space – even if that space is owned by the county. If CSTS decides it needs more space at some point and moves out of the Annex, the county still has financial obligations related to that building. Government is shrinking, Peterson noted, and shouldn’t keep paying for space it doesn’t need or can’t afford.

Peterson noted that the Annex was originally intended for administrative offices, not for the delivery of services. He expressed concern that certain county departments previously had vacated the Ellsworth and Towner facilities, which the county had bonded for. The county needs revenue in order to pay its obligations on bonds for facilities, he said, and it can’t do that if those facilities are vacant. The county departments that moved “stuck us with a debt,” he said, and taxpayers don’t want their money going to pay for buildings that are empty.

If a county department pays rent, it should pay it back to the county first, Peterson argued. “We’ve got a lot of vacant space – let’s fill our buildings up first.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) agreed with Peterson, that the leases with CSTS and City Center should match in duration. Regarding parking, Smith noted that the county owns a parking lot at Main Street and Ann Street that is leased to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and that the county plans to renegotiate that agreement. Dill indicated that he’s had a preliminary discussion with DDA executive director Susan Pollay. Smith suggested integrating into that negotiation some kind of voucher program at the Fourth & Washington parking structure, which is a gated facility and only a block away from the Annex.

The Washtenaw County Annex building at 110 N. Fourth Ave.

C. Smith also suggested making capital improvements in county facilities – in energy efficiency, for example – so that it would decrease the cost of operations. Dill noted that since 2008, the county has reduced its operating budget by over $15 million, and has cut the headcount for infrastructure management by 17 full-time equivalent positions. Dill said the staff will continue to look for ways to decrease costs. But he noted that CSTS had added 39 new employees, and the space is needed to accommodate that.

C. Smith clarified that he was looking for savings across the entire county operation, not just in Dill’s department. In terms of policy, Smith said that when the county makes an investment, it should leverage county taxpayer dollars first. So when looking for space, the first priority should be using county-owned facilities. The second priority should be using space owned by other government entities – the city of Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti, or the state of Michigan, for example. Only after that should the county consider leasing space from the private sector. Dill replied that this approach is already part of the county’s operating strategy.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) clarified that the $333,037 rent includes utilities. He said he wasn’t happy about leasing spaces, but liked the idea of a five-year out clause.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he felt the board was on the same page about this issue. He praised Dill’s efforts, and noted that renting is a good intermediate step but not a long-term solution.

In response to a query from Rabhi, Dill explained that every department is assessed a fee as part of the cost allocation plan (CAP), which covers internal services like utilities, maintenance, and administrative costs, for example. All of that is already built into the budget, so no additional charges will be needed to accommodate the CSTS move, he said. The goal is to create as little strain on the general fund as possible.

In terms of a specific lease with CSTS, Dill indicated that he could work with the administration on that. Although leases are common for non-county departments who use county-owned space, he said it’s not typical to do a contract with a county department. That’s his hesitancy, Dill said. Rabhi encouraged him to explore that option.

Peterson said it’s nothing unusual to ask for a lease, noting that if CSTS had to find facilities elsewhere from a private landlord, the unit would need to sign a lease. He wanted to revisit the policy about how departments pay for their space. “We do not have the ability to give anything away, other than services to the public,” he said.

Peterson further questioned the $5 million of funding for the strategic space plan, and seemed surprised at the amount. [The plan had been approved unanimously by the board at its July 10, 2013 meeting, and had included a discussion in which Peterson had participated.] On Aug. 7, Peterson indicated a desire to revisit that $5 million budget allocation, which included $2.2 million from the county’s capital reserves. The county is facing a budget deficit in 2014, he noted, and nothing is untouchable.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) thanked Dill for his team’s hard work. She pointed out that the Dahlmanns pay a lot of taxes to this community. “They’re not some conglomerate out of New York City,” she said.

C. Smith clarified with Dill that although CSTS is a county department, it is funded by the WCHO. Dill indicated that an agreement about the space is being worked out with WCHO. Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) agreed that it’s important to secure an agreement with the WCHO.

Leasing Agreements: Head Start

The board was asked to approve a 10-year lease of a county-owned Head Start building at 1661 Leforge Ave. in Ypsilanti to the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. [.pdf of lease agreement] The WISD is taking over management of the Head Start program from the county, which has administered it for over four decades. After considerable debate, the board made the decision in late 2011 to relinquish the Head Start program.

The county took out bonds to pay for the construction of the $2.29 million Head Start facility in 2002. Ten years remain on the bond repayment for a total of $1.66 million.

WISD will begin making payments in 2014. Annual payments vary, beginning with $166,862 by Oct. 1, 2014. [.pdf of rent payment schedule] After the final payment, the county would deed the Head Start building and surrounding 11-acre property to the WISD. During the term of the lease, WISD will pay for utilities and basic maintenance, but the county will be liable for structural issues with the building, including roof repairs, broken windows, and other repairs – unless the repairs are caused by WISD action.

Leasing Agreements: Head Start – Board Discussion

Conan Smith noted that only $25,000 remains in the county’s Head Start fund, yet the county will be making the next annual bond payment of about $142,176 for the Head Start building. County administrator Verna McDaniel said that amount had already been budgeted from the county’s capital reserves in anticipation of this transition.

Dan Smith noted that this is the second item on the Aug. 7 agenda involving the WISD. [The other item involved a Medicaid outreach program.] He was pleased to see the county working more closely with that organization.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved both lease agreements related to City Center and Head Start.

Bonding for Ann Arbor Drain, Rain Garden Projects

Backing for up to $3.3 million in bonds to pay for five drain-related projects in Ann Arbor was on the Aug. 7 agenda for approval, in five separate resolutions.

From left: Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and John Axe, an attorney who provides bond counsel services to the county.

The projects will be managed by the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt. Three projects relate to stormwater control along the Allen Creek, with the goal of reduced flooding downstream and decreased e. coli and phosphorous entering the Huron River. They include: (1) up to $435,000 for stormwater control along South Fourth Avenue between Huron and Liberty streets; (2) up to $1.155 million for stormwater control along Madison Avenue between South Seventh and Main streets; and (3) up to $575,000 for stormwater control along South Forest from South University to an area north of Hill Street.

The county board also was asked to approve bonding for up to $465,000 to design and build rain gardens in Ann Arbor, and up to $700,000 to plant trees throughout the city. No specific locations were identified for these projects, which are part of the Huron River Green Infrastructure District initiative.

All five projects have been approved to be funded through the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality’s Clean Water Revolving Funds low-interest loan program.

Bonding for Ann Arbor Drain Projects: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) thanked water resources commissioner Evan Pratt for his work on these projects. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) also thanked Pratt, pointing out that these projects are located in Ann Arbor and are crucial in addressing one of the county board’s priorities on environmental protection.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) noted that this is one of the first green infrastructure projects that the board has approved. He asked Pratt to talk about the intent of the green infrastructure program and how it works. Pratt described it as an extension of past projects, focused more on the city of Ann Arbor. He highlighted the fact that all but one of these projects on the Aug. 7 agenda include 50% loan forgiveness from the MDEQ’s Clean Water Revolving Fund. He said that more than 105 rain gardens have been built over three years, and he expects another 40 rain gardens to be installed this year. All of those have an incremental benefit on the county’s water quality mandate, he said, but the rain gardens also help with flooding issues.

The green infrastructure drain district allows these kinds of projects to be done outside of the city’s boundaries as well, Pratt explained. C. Smith described investments in green infrastructure as one of the best kinds of environmental investments the county can make. Physical infrastructure is so expensive, while planting trees and building rain gardens is gentler on the planet and serves a great purpose, he said.

Pratt explained that it’s a permanent benefit, because rain gardens allow water to soak into the ground so that it doesn’t cause flooding further downstream. Green infrastructure is state-of-the-art in his industry, Pratt added, and he encouraged commissioners to drive around and see what the rain gardens look like. Plants were just put in for rain gardens on the north side of Miller Avenue, he reported. Street drainage is one of the most polluted kinds of runoff, and the rain gardens help filter that. It’s more visible to the public than the “invisible” underground pipes, Pratt noted, so it will be important to maintain those areas.

John Axe, a Grosse Pointe Farms attorney who has served as the county’s bond counsel for several decades, was on hand at the meeting but did not formally address the board.

Outcome: All drain-related projects were unanimously approved.

Food Policy Grant

Commissioners were asked to accept a $20,000 capacity-building grant from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation for work on the Washtenaw food policy council.

The grant will pay for training of food council members, a “foodshed mapping” project, and development of an educational and public outreach effort. The grant will be administered by a staff member of the county’s public health department, who has a seat on the council. The department will provide a $15,571 in-kind match for the grant.

The food policy council was created by the county board on March 21, 2012. Most of its members were appointed on June 6, 2012, when the county board also approved the council’s bylaws. [.pdf of food policy council bylaws] The council aims to support local small and mid-sized farmers by fostering policies that encourage local food purchasing and production. Council activities might include: recommending policy changes at the local, state and national levels; providing a forum for discussing food issues; encouraging coordination among different sectors of the local food system; evaluating, educating, and influencing policy; and launching or supporting programs and services that address local food needs.

County board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who also serves on the food policy council, had informed the board on March 6, 2013 that the county would be applying for this grant. At that meeting, commissioner Ronnie Peterson had expressed interest in having a broader discussion to develop a process for seeking funds for projects that other commissioners might want to bring forward. That discussion has not yet occurred.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board approved receipt of the food policy grant.

Staff Increase for County Clerk

An increase in staff for the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office – primarily to handle an increase in processing passports and concealed pistol license applications – was on the Aug. 7 agenda for final approval.

The change involves creating a full-time administrative coordinator position from a job that’s currently part-time (a 0.64 full-time equivalent position). The total cost for that full-time position is estimated at $56,902 – or an additional $15,631 in general fund support. It’s expected that a decrease in the need for temporary workers will help offset the payroll increase, as will a projected surplus in license and permit revenue. According to a staff memo, that revenue is expected to exceed projections by at least $33,824.

Until mid-2008, the office had 5 full-time employees (FTEs) in the elections and administration division, which handles passport applications and concealed pistol licenses (CPL). The economic downturn and subsequent restructuring dropped staffing levels to 3.64 FTE positions.

CPL applications increased 140% between 2009 to 2012, to an average 2,091 applications per year compared to 870 in 2009. This year is expected to set a record for CPL applications. For the first quarter of 2013 there were 1,168 applications, compared to 540 in the first quarter of 2012. [.pdf of application data from 2004-2013] [.pdf of approved licenses from 2008-2013]

If the total number of applications in 2013 reaches projections of at least 3,225, that will generate revenue of $83,824 to the general fund – above the original 2013 budget amount of $50,000.

In addition, on Aug. 7 commissioners gave final approval to shift support for one full-time position in the clerk/register of deeds office back into the general fund, at a cost of $56,117. That position – a records management specialist – is currently funded by revenues from the office’s “automation fund.” Until 2008, that position was paid for out of the general fund.

The automation fund pays for digitizing the county’s land records from 1824 through 1958, which are currently available only on paper. The goal is to relocate the paper records and clear out space in the lower level of 200 N. Main Street, as part of the county’s “space plan.” Digitization will also allow the public to search quickly and retrieve county records electronically, which will generate usage revenues for the general fund. Revenues for online usage increased from about $220,000 in 2010 to about $323,000 in 2012.

According to a staff memo, the number of documents recorded by the county clerk/register of deeds office has increased from fewer than 53,000 documents in 2008 to more than 85,000 documents expected in 2013. Revenues from the office to the general fund have grown from $2.248 million in 2011 to $3.198 million in 2012. Those revenues are expected to continue growing as the local real estate market recovers.

The staffing request had received initial approval at the board’s July 10, 2013 meeting. At that time, commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) had pointed out that this is the third time in 2013 that the board has been asked to approve an increase in staffing. In isolation, each increase makes sense, he said. But as the headcount changes over time, it’s troubling. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum responded, saying: “This doesn’t change headcount at all.”

There was no discussion on this item at the Aug. 7 meeting.

Outcome: The changes in the clerk’s staff were unanimously given final approval.

Grant for Medicaid Outreach

Commissioners were asked to authorize receipt of a $665,704 grant to pay for two outreach workers with the Washtenaw Health Plan (WHP), who will focus on increasing children’s participation in federal Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), known as children’s Medicaid.

The grant covers a two-year period, from July 15, 2013 through July 14, 2015. It will fund a county public health and WHP program called Coverage Counts: Connecting Teens, Immigrant and Homeless Families to Insurance. The program will operate in Washtenaw and Livingston counties. According to a staff memo, 5,000 children are currently eligible for Medicaid and 5,100 parents will become eligible for enrollment under Medicaid expansion.

The grant program will include collaboration with the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) and the Livingston Educational Services Agency (LESA), as well as the Livingston public health department and the Livingston Health Plan.

The two grant-funded positions will have a salary range of $36,820 to $52,404.

Grant for Medicaid Outreach: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that the county is once again hiring staff. He understood the positions are supported with grant funding, but that source might go away. The county has already seen that happen in other cases, he noted, and it puts pressure on the board to retain the employees even without grant funding. It also requires the county to pay for more space as its employment grows. Each hire has an impact, he said, noting that he has no objection to any single hire. “But taken as a whole, it continues to be concerning as our headcount slowly inches up … over months that turn into years.”

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked for clarification about when the employees would be hired. Ellen Rabinowitz, executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan, reported that the county has already been awarded the grant, and was awaiting board approval in order to receive it. The jobs would be posted after the board takes action, she said, and the positions probably wouldn’t be filled until mid-September.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to accept receipt of this grant.

Employment Services Grants

Two federal grants related to the county’s employment services were on the Aug. 7 agenda: (1) a $2.094 million grant from the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth Programs; and (2) a $436,063 grant from the federal Employment Services Program. Both programs are administered by the county’s office of community & economic development.

The WIA grant last year had been significantly higher, at $2.548 million, but was cut this year due to federal sequestration. Through this program last year, the county served 235 adults, 297 dislocated workers, and 372 youth. With reduced funding, this year the program is expected to provide training services to 105 adults, 155 dislocated Workers, and 295 youth, along with new enrollees.

The grant from the Employment Services Program has also been cut, from $470,755 last year. According to a staff memo, this grant pays for job search assistance, assessment, job referral and job placement services; re-employment services to unemployment insurance claimants; and recruitment services to employers. Last year, there were about 225 daily visits to the Michigan Works Service Center for these services.

Employment Services Grants: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked about the 225 daily visits to the Michigan Works Service Center, which is located in Ypsilanti. She wondered how that compares to other communities. Mary Jo Callan, OCED director, reported that some service centers in more populous communities – like Detroit, Wayne County and Oakland County – see over 1,000 visits per day. For Washtenaw County, the numbers translate into about 11,000 unduplicated residents each year. Most people come back multiple times, she explained, and some people never officially enroll in the program. Washtenaw Community College provides the bulk of those services, she said, and WCC staff are embedded in the Ypsilanti office.

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Brabec also asked about the cut in WIA funding. Sequestration cuts had been anticipated, Callan replied, but are just starting to hit the county now. These grants were effective July 1, 2013. At the federal level, the funding was cut about 5%. But because Michigan’s unemployment rate dropped, less money was awarded to this state, Callan said. On average, all workforce development grants in Michigan took about a 17% cut compared to last year.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked about the services for youth. Callan explained that a large portion of grant funding is for youth ages 14-22. Services include tutoring, mentoring, skills training, internships and direct employment. Internships often lead to full-time employment at the same company, she noted. There’s also a new initiative called Career Connections, which Callan described as a “low-intensity mentoring program.” A recent networking event brought together about 40 youth and adult professionals from various fields, with Elizabeth Parkinson – marketing vice president for the Detroit Lions – as the keynote speaker. The county also funds B-Side of Youth‘s computer training program, which Callan said is similar to one that was described earlier in the evening by Tyrone Bridges. [Bridges' public commentary is reported later in this article.]

In response to another question from Ping, Callan said the programs are advertised in schools, including recommendations from school counselors. Outreach is also done through nonprofits that serve high-risk youth, social media, and peer-to-peer word of mouth.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) reported that he’s working with Callan and other county staff to develop a countywide youth-based program that would coordinate the county’s various initiatives. He expects to bring forward a proposal later this year.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved receipt of both grants.

Township Sewer Contract Amendment

The amendment of a contract between Washtenaw County, Lyndon Township and Sylvan Township was on the agenda for initial approval. [.pdf of original contract]

In February 2013, county commissioners voted to refinance debt for a sewer system in Lyndon and Sylvan townships, on the county’s west side. The resolution authorized the sale of refunding bonds that would be used to pay the remaining principal on existing bonds that were sold in 2004. That year, the county sold $5.115 million in bonds to help the townships pay for the sewer. Of that amount, $2.225 million remained to be repaid, prior to the refunding. The project built sewers at Cavanaugh, Sugar Loaf, Cassidy, Crooked, and Cedar Lakes. It’s funded through special assessments on property around those lakes and payments by the Sugar Loaf Lake State Park and Cassidy Lake State Corrections Facility.

In March 2013, the county received bids for the refunding, with the lowest bid from Hastings City Bank at an interest rate of 1.749838%. As a result of this refunding, only $695,000 in debt remains on this bond issue. Lyndon Township was able to cash reserves and redeemed all of their outstanding debt for this project.

The contract amendments given initial approval by county commissioners on Aug. 7 remove Lyndon Township from any responsibility for debt retirement and reduce the amount of debt for Sylvan Township. All other provisions of the contract remain in place until the bonds are paid off in 2022. Both township boards have previously approved these changes, according to a staff memo.

This sewer system is separate from a controversial water and wastewater treatment plant project in Sylvan Township. For more background on that project, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract.”

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave initial approval to the contract amendment. A final vote is expected on Sept. 4.

Historic District Commission Appointment

Yousef Rabhi nominated Terry Cwik, president of the Salem Area Historical Society, to serve on the Washtenaw County Historic District Commission. Cwik fills a position slotted for the general public, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2015.

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the appointment of Terry Cwik to the county HDC.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: UA (Plumbers & Pipefitters)

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau, was on hand with several representatives of the bureau as well as from the United Association (UA) Union of Plumbers, Pipefitters, Sprinkler Fitters, Steamfitters, and Service Technicians. The UA is holding its 60th annual training program in Washtenaw County from Aug. 10-16. She noted that it’s the 24th year that UA has held its training program at Washtenaw Community College.

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau.

More than 2,500 participants will generate an estimated $5 million into the local economy, she said. There will be a community block party on Aug. 12 hosted by the bureau, held on Main Street starting at 6 p.m. That same day there will be a UA 5K run and pub crawl to benefit the Semper Fi Fund, which provides financial support to wounded veterans and their families. “The UA leaves this community in much better condition than when they came at the beginning of the week,” Kerr said. She introduced several representatives from WCC, UA Local 190, UA staff, and bureau board members.

Chris Haslinger, UA director of training, spoke to the board and characterized the relationship between the WCC and UA as a true partnership, including the creation of online classes and the ability to earn college credits by participating in the UA training program. He noted that this is a comprehensive year-round training program, not a one-week convention. There are also two locals – UA Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 190, and UA Sprinkler Fitters Local 704 – whose members live and work here.

This year, there are over 400 new students attending this program, Haslinger said, which is a record for UA. This year, there’s also a group from Australia who are participating, as well as representatives from the World Plumbing Council, with people from India, China and Australia.

Haslinger thanked the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti CVBs, the county commissioners and WCC for their year-round support. He received a round of applause at the end of his comments. The board subsequently passed a proclamation welcoming the UA and thanking the association for its contributions to the county. [.pdf of proclamation]

Several commissioners also spoke in appreciation of UA, the CVBs and WCC. Rolland Sizemore Jr. noted that he’s working with the CVBs to develop a guide for motorcycle riders in the county, which he thought would interest UA members. Ronnie Peterson, noting that he represents the Ypsilanti area, encouraged UA officials to give feedback about how the county can make their experience even better. He pointed out that he attended the first welcoming for the UA training program more than 20 years ago. Yousef Rabhi thanked the UA for its year-round commitment to Washtenaw County over so many years.

Communications & Commentary: Computer Program for Teens

During public commentary, Tyrone Bridges introduced himself as program director for a local nonprofit that teaches kids how to use and repair computers. Five teens who participate in the program also attended the meeting.

Some of the teens who developed a program that teaches computer skills to senior citizens. They attended the Aug. 7 meeting of the county board of commissioners.

Bridges said the students had created an inter-generational program that’s been honored by the city of Ypsilanti. The program involves students teaching senior citizens how to use computers. But the students who developed the program don’t have jobs, he said. They volunteer every day during the summer, he noted, and are being kept out of trouble. “We’re begging the county to look into your heart and look into your budget to see if there’s some wiggle room” to help fund the program, Bridges said. He added that he’s tried to reach commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. “to make other things happen.”

Sizemore responded to the commentary, saying he wanted to make sure that Bridges and the computer program were part of a broader effort to help this county’s youth. Conan Smith recalled that several years ago, Bridges had approached the board for funding but didn’t have a 501(c)3 status. [At the board's Feb. 18, 2009 meeting, Bridges had told commissioners that he had applied for $6,500 community development block grant, and was told that he wasn’t eligible because his group hadn’t been audited.]

Bridges replied that his group had been a 501(c)3 nonprofit for 24 years, and had recently received funding from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. C. Smith replied that perhaps Bridges could talk with Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, to see if there were opportunities for capacity-building grants through the coordinated funding program. “It’s modest enough that it should be fundable,” C. Smith said. He thanked Bridges and the teens for the work that they do, calling it innovative and creative. “You’re touching people’s lives in important ways.”

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Nov. 5, 2013 write-in candidate for the Ann Arbor city council seat in Ward 5. He noted that the meeting’s agenda lacked items related to pressing issues, like affordable housing, transit and health care. He told commissioners they were ignoring their responsibilities in very significant areas, saying that it was negligence to ignore the civil rights of residents.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The Tyler Odyssey Case Records Management System would replace an outdated software system that hasn’t been supported by the previous vendor since 2005, according to a staff memo.

The board’s original resolution included a funding proposal for this system, from the following sources: (1) a $551,998 refund from the state related to an unfinished pilot project; (2) $200,000 from an anticipated 2013 surplus in the trial court budget; (3) $700,000 from the county’s IT fund balance; and (4) $899,463 from the county’s capital reserves, to be repaid with any trial court surplus starting in 2014.

However, some commissioners expressed concern about the use of capital reserves, so an alternative resolution was brought forward at the meeting that did not include the references to funding sources. An amendment to that alternative resolution – made after considerable discussion and procedural maneuverings – stated that the board approved the selection of this software system, and directed the county administrator to develop a maintenance and implementation plan, and to identify funding sources by the time of the board’s Sept. 4, 2013 meeting.

The resolution as amended passed on a 7-2 vote at the ways & means committee meeting, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Smith objected to passing a resolution that approved the purchase without identifying a funding source. Ping was concerned that there had been no clear source of funding identified for the system’s annual maintenance fee, estimated at $188,933.

The resolution failed to garner sufficient votes for final approval when the board voted at its regular board meeting, which immediately follows ways & means committee meeting. To pass, the resolution needed six votes, because final approval was being sought on the same night as initial approval. The final vote was 5-4, with dissent from Ping, Dan Smith, Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1). That means the resolution will automatically be moved to the Sept. 4 agenda for final consideration.

A lengthy memo from court administrator Dan Dwyer described the history of the current software and lists its shortcomings, including an inability to compute or apply late fees on unpaid accounts, and the fact that it does not support electronic filing or online access to case information by the public. [.pdf of Dwyer's memo] The trial court was involved in a pilot project with the state of Michigan to develop a new records management system – but that project was not completed and the trial court pulled out of it in February 2013.

A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in April 2013, and four proposals were received. Tyler Technology was selected based on a range of criteria, according to Dwyer, including stability, experience, and its approach to implementation and project management. The firm’s annual maintenance cost of $188,933 was the lowest of the two qualified bidders.

The trial court is an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court. It also includes, as of July 1, a new specialized business court. The trial court’s chief judge is Donald Shelton.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Doug Smith, standing, talks with other members of the Washtenaw Watchdogs before the start of the July 10, 2013 county board meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Several of those who spoke are affiliated with the Washtenaw Watchdogs. The group has raised concerns about the bonding and is prepared to launch a petition drive that would force the proposal to be put on the ballot for voters to approve.

The bond initiative, publicly proposed in May, was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The original maximum amount for the bonds had been estimated at up to $345 million. But updated actuarial data resulted in a lower estimate of about $295 million.

However, on July 3, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and county administrator Verna McDaniel issued a joint statement announcing a decision not to put bond-related action items on the July 10 agenda. They cited the need to address unanswered questions, including uncertainty about the state approval process. No date has been set to reschedule action, if any, on the proposal.

In addition to the bond proposal hearing, the board held three other public hearings during its July 10 meeting: on two brownfield plans in Ann Arbor – for 544 Detroit St. and Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall) – and for annexing land from Scio Township into the village of Dexter to accommodate the expansion of Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. All items were subsequently approved by commissioners.

The board also gave final approval to a range of infrastructure projects totaling about $5 million for county government facilities – including redeveloping the Platt Road site in Ann Arbor where the old juvenile center was located. An amendment brought forward by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) called for creating a 9-member advisory committee to guide the dispensation of the Platt Road site, which is located in his district. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns about the authority of such a committee. He was assured that the board retains control over whether to act on the committee’s recommendations. Details of how the advisory committee will be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, will require approval from the board at a later date.

In other action, the board gave initial approval to a modest increase in staff for the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office – bumping up a staff position from part-time to full-time – primarily to handle an increase in processing passports and concealed pistol license applications. Commissioners also made several appointments to various boards and commissions, nominated by Rabhi as board chair. He announced he wasn’t yet ready to make nominations to the county’s historic district commission.

Also pushed back was a final vote on a notice of intent to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system. Initial approval for this action came on a 5-4 vote at the board’s June 5, 2013 meeting. But on July 10, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – who had originally brought forward the proposal – asked for postponement until the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, citing communications she’d had with trial court chief judge Donald Shelton. The vote to postpone was 6-2, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

In addition to feedback about the bonding proposal, commissioners heard from leaders of two nonprofits – Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative and Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House – about the need to support human services funding. Uncertainty about the upcoming budget has caused concern among nonprofits that have been historically funded by the county.

Also during public commentary, two members of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Ann Arbor thanked commissioners and staff for quickly restoring domestic partner benefits to nine county employees, following recent court rulings that enabled the county to reinstate such benefits.

Facial hair got a minor mention at the July 10 meeting, when Rabhi told Dan Smith: “Your beard is epic – congratulations on it.” Smith used the opening to mention that he’s growing the beard for his role as Lazar Wolf in the upcoming production of “Fiddler on the Roof.” The show runs from July 19-21 at the Whitmore Lake High School Theater. He received a round of applause from the board. Peterson joked that he was glad for the explanation – Peterson had been prepared to reach out to Smith with the name of his barber.

Bond Proposal & Budget

Though a controversial bond proposal had been pulled from the agenda the previous week, on July 10 commissioners held the scheduled public hearing for that proposal . The original bonding proposal of potentially up to $345 million was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The board had set the public hearing at its meeting on June 5, 2013, and had also intended to take initial votes on July 10 on several items related to the bonding.

However, on Wednesday, July 3, board chair Yousef Rabhi and county administrator Verna McDaniel issued a joint statement announcing a decision not to put the bond-related items on the July 10 agenda. They cited the need to address questions and concerns that had been raised by commissioners and the public, as well as uncertainty related to the state approval process that’s required for this type of bonding. [See Chronicle coverage: "County to Push Back Vote on Bond Proposal."]

Some commissioners have also asked whether alternatives to a bonding approach might also be viable, but the administration has not provided other options, other than a list of major cuts to programs and services. The original plan put forward by the administration was to bond for up to $345 million, although officials believed the amount would be lower than that, pending an updated actuarial report.

The printed agenda for the July 10 meeting still included the bond-related items, though the items had been removed from the agenda before the meeting. The printed agenda listed the proposed bonding amount at $295.115 million. That’s the figure that Rabhi reported in a phone interview with The Chronicle on July 3.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle on July 16, McDaniel said the $295 million figure was based on updated preliminary estimates for unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL) totaling $272.999 million for both WCERS and VEBA. Interest and fees on that amount for bonding is being recalculated, she reported, but it will likely be a week or two before the new calculations are completed.

After the July 10 board meeting, the county administration released an updated “experience study” from Buck Consultants, the actuarial firm used by the county. An experience study is the basis for the final actuarial report, which has not yet been completed. [.pdf of 2013 experience study report] A preliminary report on this study was presented at a special joint session of the WCERS and VEBA boards on June 25. The 7-member WCERS board includes county commissioners Dan Smith and Conan Smith, county administrator Verna McDaniel and county finance director Kelly Belknap. Conan Smith also sits on the 5-member VEBA board, which is chaired by county accounting manager Pete Collinson.

Buck Consultants had recommended adopting a 10-year amortization schedule for the county’s unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL), in order to cover those liabilities as quickly as possible. The county administration had originally expected to pay an estimated $30 million contribution toward the WCERS and VEBA obligations in 2014, if bonding did not occur. That amount was based on the 10-year amortization schedule.

At the June 25 special meeting, however, the WCERS and VEBA boards voted to adopt a longer, graduated amortization schedule for the UAAL of 27 years (WCERS) and 26 years (VEBA), with the amortization schedule decreasing annually by a two-year period. This change will lower the UAAL contributions county will need to make to cover its obligations each year.

In an email to The Chronicle on July 16, McDaniel indicated that revised estimates for the 2014-17 budget will be reported at the county board’s July 24 ways & means committee meeting. She estimated the amount for 2014 is now expected to be about $26 million, instead of $30 million.

The final actuarial report by Buck Consultants is expected to be delivered to the WCERS and VEBA boards later this week. Those boards have set a joint meeting for Tuesday, July 30 to review the material. The meeting starts at 10:30 a.m. in the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

Bond Proposal & Budget: Public Commentary & Public Hearing

The first public hearing on the bond proposal had been held on June 5. That public hearing drew four people who all expressed caution about the possible action, as some attendees suggested a millage or additional budget cuts to cover the retiree obligations – instead of bonding.

On July 10, more than a half dozen people spoke at the public hearing as well as during two opportunities for public commentary. Many of the speakers were affiliated with a group called the Washtenaw Watchdogs, which has raised concerns about the bonding and is prepared to launch a petition drive that would force the proposal to be put on the ballot for voters to approve. In addition to the speakers, several other members of the Washtenaw Watchdogs – many of them wearing the group’s T-shirt – attended the meeting.

The back of a T-shirt for the Washtenaw Watchdogs.

Doug Smith, one of the group’s organizers, spoke at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as at the bond proposal’s public hearing. He told commissioners that he’d watched presentations at the board’s last working session on June 6, and noted that the projections all assume that the bonds could be sold at a 4% interest rate, while the market returns would be about 6 or 6.5%. The proposal ignores the millions of dollars it would cost to initiate an intermediate trust and to sell the bonds, he said, as well as the cost of managing the trust. The bonds would be taxable, and could be recalled early, Smith said – which is good for the county, but makes the bonds less attractive to investors. Current rates for taxable municipal bonds are rising, and will likely to continue to increase, he noted.

Smith suggested looking at the county’s current pension trusts to gauge possible investment returns, and the cost of managing those investments. The WCERS trust has earned an average 8.2% since it was formed in 1981, he noted, but most of the higher returns were in the 1980s and 1990s, when inflation and interest rates were much higher than now. The country was also going through a tech revolution at the time, he said, and it’s unlikely the markets will see another period like that. Since 2000, the net gains for the WCERS trust have been 2%. The VEBA trust has an average 3.5% net gain since it was formed in 1997, and since 2000 the net gain is 2.4%. The trusts are paying more than $1 million in expenses to financial managers that are underperforming, he said.

Smith also pointed to the actuarial risk – what if retirees live longer than expected? If the county ends up needing to pay more to retirees while it also repays the bonds, that’s a money crunch. “But all of you will be long-gone from the board by then,” he said. It’s also possible that the bonds will be sold at up to 5.5% interest, and that the return on investments from those funds will be lower, he noted – that’s not an unrealistic scenario.

He then described two scenarios for possible outcomes of the bond’s investment trust. If the county borrows $300 million and invests it in the stock market, in one scenario the investment return might be 10% ($30 million) in the first year. But if the required contribution that year to the retirement trust is $29 million, and the investment expenses are $1 million, you end the year with the same $300 million. Smith described a second scenario in which the county loses 10% ($30 million) in the first year, but still has to make the $29 million contribution to the retirement trust and the $1 million in expenses. So the county ends the year with only $240 million. All future years would reflect that initial loss, he said.

In 2008, the WCERS fund lost 33% on its equity investments, Smith noted. Though there might not be a worse year in the future, he said, it’s likely there will be another financial meltdown of some sort in the next 25 years. Bond counsel John Axe and the Eastern Michigan University professor who made a presentation at a board working session earlier this year made rosy projections, he said. But those projections don’t consider that funds must be paid out every year to the WCERS and VEBA trusts, Smith said. The payouts make the timing of losses important, and the county might never recover from early losses.

Smith also pointed out that most experts feel the market is currently overvalued. And because there’s an inverse relationship between the bond market and stock market, the county might be putting taxpayer money into the stock market at just the wrong time, he said. What will happen if the intermediate trust runs out of money before the bonds are paid off? The county would have to pay off the bonds as well as contribute to the retirement trusts. “That’s going to be a much worse cash flow problem than you’re now facing.” He asked commissioners not to approve the bonding proposal, or at the very least to let the voters decide.

If the board votes to move ahead with the bonding, Smith said, he and others are prepared to gather the required signatures to put the proposal on the ballot as a voter referendum. They need only 15,000 signatures, he noted, and they already have about 25 volunteers to circulate petitions. The Washtenaw Watchdogs will have a booth at the Ann Arbor art fairs on Liberty Street near Division, and they’ll be going to other events and canvassing neighborhoods as well. He also encouraged potential volunteers to visit the group’s website.

Ray Williams asked how many commissioners would mortgage their house to play the stock market. That’s what the county is planning with this bond proposal, he said. “If you are not prepared to do the same with your own money, why is it a good idea for the taxpayers of Washtenaw County to do the same thing?” He didn’t want Washtenaw County to be like other counties that had made risky investments and that were now bankrupt. It’s hard to believe the county can’t find ways to eliminate its deficit without bonding, he said. The decision will affect citizens for the next 25 years, Williams said, and it should be put on the ballot so that taxpayers can decide. If the board votes to bond, Williams said he’d do everything he could to help collect the 15,000 signatures needed to force a ballot referendum.

Thomas Partridge also spoke at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as during the public hearing. He expressed concern over the proposed bonding, and urged the board not to do it. The county’s ability to bond should instead be used to build affordable housing and to provide other services for this area’s most vulnerable residents. He criticized the fact that most of the county’s revenues come from property taxes, which he characterized as a 19th century concept that gives property owners more influence in the political process. He accused Democratic commissioners of supporting a totalitarian state administration that aims to limit the role of government, even though there are homeless people outside the door of the county administration building, he said.

Judy Bloss began by saying she didn’t pretend to understand the complexities for the bonding proposal. She could understand the desire to have her children take care of her, but she had questions about the county’s bond counsel, John Axe, having his daughter profiting from that deal. [Axe & Ecklund provides a 15% discount on its fees if the county also hires Municipal Financial Consultants Inc. (MFCI) as the financial consultant on the bonding deal. Although it wasn't disclosed at public meetings about the proposal, MFCI president Meredith Shanle is Axe’s daughter.]

During her second turn at public commentary, Bloss told commissioners that she’s experiencing some unfunded liabilities in her own life, related to medical expenses. However, she’s not planning to borrow money from her home equity line of credit to pay those bills and to invest in the stock market, hoping to realize a profit. It’s not the job of county government to borrow money and invest it to make a profit, she said. Bloss noted that about 70% of the county budget funds mandated expenses, but the rest is discretionary. She suggested as a starting point to cut taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, which she accused of killing babies. She didn’t want blood on her hands.

A man from Webster Township told commissioners that they were elected to spend the money that the county collects from him and other taxpayers. But now, the board is looking to borrow money on behalf of the taxpayers. In the past, the county has borrowed for things like the jail and civic improvements, he said. It’s a noble reason to pay for retiree pension and health care, but the county would be borrowing against the fiscal well-being of its residents. It’s disrespectful if commissioners don’t put it on the ballot for voters to decide, he said. The July 4th celebration was initially based on the issue of rebelling against taxation without representation, he noted. And even though the bond proposal isn’t direct taxation, he concluded, it’s still a burden on the community.

Les Heddle referred to the information about the bonding proposal that’s posted on the county’s website. Many pertinent questions are still unanswered, he said, including the fact that the county is using data that’s 18 months old. It’s hard to believe that there isn’t a way to get more current data, he said. He believed current data would show a much lower level of unfunded liabilities. He also didn’t understand how the board had been ready to vote on this proposal when the staff hadn’t provided all of the necessary information regarding the state requirements. Who’s doing the due diligence? he wondered. It’s an egregious error and lack of judgment by the staff. He said he was trying not to get angry, because he had a lot of friends on the board. He indicated that if this had happened in the private sector, it would not be acceptable. “There should be some accounting for that, all the way up and down the line,” he said.

Heddle said that in his business, if he doesn’t live up to his clients’ expectations, they can take their money elsewhere. [Heddle is a financial advisor with Edward Jones in Ypsilanti.] He again questioned why the county administration wasn’t able to provide a proposal based on more up-to-date information. The board needs to get an answer from the administration about why they’re using data that’s so old. It might give some insight into why the county is in its current situation, Heddle said. He also criticized the county’s bond proposal website for not being updated regularly.

From left: County financial analyst Tina Gavalier and finance director Kelly Belknap.

During the public hearing, Heddle addressed several issues related to the list of answers to Frequently Asked Questions on the county’s bonding website. For example, one of the FAQs asked what will happen to the proceeds if the intermediate trust outperforms the bond payments, he noted, but it doesn’t ask what happens if the trust underperforms. Heddle said it’s difficult to find useful, up-to-date information, or anything that indicates what will happen if the bonding doesn’t work as planned.

Stephen Ranzini suggested an alternative to the current bonding proposal, which he called misguided. He indicated that although interest rates are low, the stock market is overvalued and that will result in future substandard performance. The short-term benefit from the “financial engineering” that the bond deal promises will turn into future losses. He told commissioners that in 1988 when he was 23 years old, Bank One lent him $3.2 million to buy a tiny bank that’s today is known as University Bank. The loan for this leveraged buyout was made because “I’d figured out something the sellers didn’t know – that the bank’s pension fund was overfunded.” After buying the bank, he terminated and defeased the bank’s pension plan by buying an annuity from a triple-A-rated life insurance firm. The extra funds from that deal – about $800,000 – were used to fund an employee stock ownership plan, he said, which purchased common stock in the bank holding company and paid down the loan to Bank One.

In a similar way, Ranzini said, the county could defease its retirement plan by buying an annuity from a top-rated insurance firm. It would require taking on debt, he noted, but this approach would lock in today’s low interest rates and eliminate future investment risk. Because insurance companies are “hungry” for these types of long-term annuities, he added, it would likely cost less than the bond proposal. The downside is that the county would lose control over its pension fund dollars, but it’s no great loss if the county doesn’t intend to use those funds for local economic development, Ranzini argued: “In fact, it prevents possible future mischief.” He recommended this same approach to all local units of government.

Wes Prater, a former county commissioner from York Township, noted that the county’s No. 1 guiding principle – as posted on the county administrator’s website – is to ensure long-term fiscal stability. He believes in that principle, and there’s a lot of work to be done. Since 2007, the county’s long-term liabilities have increased over $15 million each year, he said. Some of those liabilities don’t show up on the balance sheet, he noted. At the end of 2012, the county had net assets of $230 million, Prater said, compared to $446 million in long-term liabilities, including between $250 million to $300 million for pension and retiree health care. The board needs to look at what has happened in the past, Prater said, and at how the county has arrived at its current situation. He said he was willing to step forward and work on a committee to research how to address these issues.

Prater also wondered when the updated actuarial report and the independent financial analysis of the bond proposal would be completed. How do citizens get the information they need to make informed decisions? he asked. Prater also wanted to know how the intermediate trust fund would work. There are several issues that need to be cleared up, he concluded.

Bond Proposal & Budget: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson said he appreciated the delay in voting on the bond proposal. He noted that advocates for human services programs are interested in the impact on their funding if the county doesn’t bond. [Two leaders of nonprofits that the county funds – Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative and Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House – spoke during public commentary, urging continued support of human services.] He assured these groups that he will advocate for them. Peterson asked for the board chair or administrator to explain what will happen next regarding the bond proposal. He vowed that the county would honor its obligations to retirees, regardless of whether the board decides to bond.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi responded, first by describing the public outreach that had been done related to the bond proposal, including public hearings, coffee hours, a press conference and public forum. None of that had been required, he said, but the board believes in engaging citizens in these decisions. The delay is due in part because of a recognition that more questions need to be answered, he said. Several commissioners had raised concerns that need to be addressed, he added, and the state still is figuring out the process for this kind of bonding.

Two months ago, Rabhi said, when the bonding proposal was first publicly floated, it wasn’t known how long the state approval process would take. So it’s not necessarily the case that the staff was remiss in getting information, he said, it’s just a new process. “I don’t want anybody to blame anybody.”

The fact that residents showed up that night to address the board is a testament to the fact that this has been an open process, Rabhi said. The public has been engaged and has asked questions.

Moving forward, he said, the county must have a balanced budget for 2014 by the end of this year, independent of any decision to bond. The board has held discussions at its meetings and retreats about the budget, he noted, but now it’s time to really focus on priorities and engage the community on that. The board will be moving into an intensive process now, delving into the budget and providing guidance to the administration, he said. Rabhi said he feels optimistic about the process, and that the county is emerging from the recession and looking at better times ahead.

Later in the meeting, Dan Smith asked for clarification about the process by which the board will explore other alternatives to the bonding proposal. He said he wasn’t asking about specific alternatives at this point, but wanted to know how various alternatives would be discussed and vetted by the board.

From left: County commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Andy Brush, the county’s IT manager.

Rabhi replied that any alternatives would be brought forward as part of the budgeting process. Felicia Brabec will be leading the budget process for the board, he said, including a discussion at the board’s July 11 working session. Dan Smith noted that until now, the board has generally discussed the budget and the bonding proposal separately, although he observed that obviously the topics are intertwined. Now, he said, it seems those discussions will be brought more closely together than previously.

Peterson asked whether the discussion would revolve around a four-year budget. When Brabec noted that the board had authorized the administration to move forward in developing a four-year budget plan, Peterson pointed out that he had voted against that action. [The board had taken that vote at its May 1, 2013 meeting, over dissent from Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr.] Peterson said he would vote against a four-year budget if it’s presented. Multi-year budgets sometimes result in problems getting pushed back, he said, or in borrowing a lot of money to deal with the county’s obligations.

Andy LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working sessions, noted that the following night there would be a discussion of budget priorities, and he implored everyone to attend. Peterson reported that he had a previous commitment and would not be present.

LaBarre also responded to a remark made by Doug Smith during public commentary. LaBarre noted that the EMU economics professor mentioned by Smith was Jens Stephan, who LaBarre said gave up about 4.5 hours of time to talk with commissioners at the June 6 working session. Stephan wasn’t advocating for any particular approach, LaBarre stressed, and was simply showing commissioners a tool they could use in making their decisions. “I want to make sure that’s on record, that he did us a public service,” LaBarre said.

Rabhi also provided a phone number that residents can call to give input on the bonding proposal via voicemail: (734) 222-6666. He also requested that the staff update the website with answers to the questions that had been raised during public commentary and the public hearing.

Peterson wanted to know that if the county changes its plan for the bonding proposal, would the board hold another public hearing? Rabhi replied that none of the public hearings were required by law. But if commissioners feel the need for more public participation, they can certainly schedule more public hearings, he said. Peterson felt it would be respectful to citizens to hold another public hearing, if the proposal changes in any way.

It’s unclear what actions might be taken next regarding the bonding proposal. The administration has previously stated that the bonding proposal was crucial to developing a four-year budget from 2014-2017. The administration has set a goal of identifying $6.99 million in structural reductions for the overall 2014 general fund budget, based on the assumption that the bonding would take place. Without the bonding, the county had expected to pay an estimated $30 million contribution toward these obligations in 2014, with additional amounts varying in subsequent years. That amount will likely be lower – estimated by McDaniel at around $26 million – based on updated actuarial information and recent decisions by the WCERS and VEBA boards.

Commissioners had previously voted to hold an extra meeting this month, on July 24. That meeting will be held as planned, but instead of bonding, the main topic will be a discussion of budget priorities.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Brownfield Plans

Two brownfield plans – for projects located in Ann Arbor – were on the agenda for both initial and final votes of approval, following public hearings on each plan. The projects are at Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall) and 544 Detroit St. The Ann Arbor city council had signed off on the plans at its June 17, 2013 meeting.

Since the city of Ann Arbor joined the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (WCBRA) in 2002, brownfield projects located in the city must receive approval by the county board. The state’s brownfield program offers incentives for redevelopment of property that’s contaminated, blighted or “functionally obsolete.”

Both plans had been recommended for approval by the county’s brownfield development authority at its June 6, 2013 meeting.

Brownfield Plans: 544 Detroit St.

The 544 Detroit St. project is seeking brownfield status so that it will be eligible for brownfield tax increment financing. The site plan calls for a three-story “flatiron-style” building, located at the triangle tip of Detroit and North Division, just southwest of the Broadway bridge – the site of a long-abandoned gas station in the Old Fourth Ward Historic District. The new building would include offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors.

According to a staff memo, up to $698,773 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund over an estimated 25-year period. The county’s annual millage revenues on that site are estimated to increase from about $277 now to $6,150 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of 544 Detroit St. brownfield plan]

At a July 9 working session of the Ann Arbor planning commission, city planning manager Wendy Rampson had reported that the site was more contaminated than the developers originally thought. Although it was clear that the site was contaminated, she said, “I don’t know that they knew how much it would cost to remediate it.”

At the county board’s July 10 public hearing on this project, two people spoke. Thomas Partridge criticized the board for not providing sufficient information about items on the agenda. He called on the owners of these sites to explain how the sites became contaminated, and asked that the current developers explain why the site can’t be developed without governmental assistance. That assistance could better be spent on other programs for the public benefit, like Head Start and affordable housing, he said.

Bret Stuntz spoke briefly on behalf of the developer – 544 Detroit Street LLC – saying he was there to answer any questions. Stuntz is a project manager at AKT Peerless Environmental & Energy Services.

Brownfield Plans: Packard Square

For Packard Square – the former Georgetown Mall site at 2502-2568 Packard St. – approval related to an amendment to the project’s original brownfield redevelopment plan, which the county board approved after much debate on May 18, 2011. At that same meeting, the board also approved a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $50 million development. That grant was later awarded to the project. The project entails building more than 200 apartments and 20,000 square feet of commercial space.

Equipment at the Packard Square site. Buildings at the former Georgetown Mall have been demolished.

The amendment to Packard Square’s brownfield plan would add two eligible activities that qualify for brownfield tax increment financing: underground parking and urban stormwater management infrastructure. Those activities are now eligible for TIF, following changes by the state legislature to the Brownfield Redevelopment Act 381 in December 2012. According to a staff memo, TIF-eligible activities total $3,582,222. Over the 14-year period of the plan, up to $5,840,557 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund. This amount is unchanged from when the plan was initially adopted.

County millage revenues from the property are estimated to increase from about $8,701 annually to $64,138 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of Packard Square brownfield plan amendment]

The developer of this project is The Harbor Companies of Bloomfield Hills, via Harbor Georgetown LLC.

Ann Arbor city planning manager Wendy Rampson had updated planning commissioners about the status of Packard Square at the commission’s July 9 working session. The good news was that the buildings have been demolished and the contaminated soil has been removed, she reported. But heavy rains had compromised a retaining wall on the northwest side of the site, adjacent to the neighboring property, and the wall had to be shored up. Rampson also reported that EQ – the company that was doing the remediation work under contract with the developer – had “demobilized” from the site because they hadn’t been paid. She indicated that the financing situation was tenuous. “We’ll see – it’s still early,” she told planning commissioners. “But it’s possible that this may be where the project ends.” [Representatives of the development told The Chronicle at the county board's July 10 meeting that the project was moving ahead.]

Two people spoke at the county board’s July 10 public hearing for Packard Square. Thomas Partridge said he was concerned about the practice of local governments applying for federal or state funds simply because those funds are available. In this case, public funds are being used to remove toxic substances and contaminated soil from these sites, so the need for those funds should be substantiated at a public meeting, he said. Partridge was concerned about the possibility of contaminated soil being spread around the neighborhood. Developers should be able to finance these projects without public assistance, he concluded.

John Byl introduced himself – he works for the law firm Warner Norcross & Judd, which is working on the Packard Square project. He thanked Nathan Voght and other county staff for their work, and thanked the board for considering the brownfield plan amendment. The maximum amount is unchanged, he noted, but a couple of categories are being added to the list of things that can qualify for TIF. Byl thanked the Ann Arbor city council and county brownfield authority board for approving the plan. He noted that Bruce Measom, representing the developer, was on hand to also answer any questions that commissioners might have.

During a break at the July 10 meeting, Byl and Measom told The Chronicle that the project was moving ahead.

Brownfield Plans: Board Discussion

The public hearings reported above were held at the board meeting, which takes place after the meeting of the ways & means committee, on which all board members serve. But the brownfield items were first considered at the ways & means committee for an initial vote, prior to the public hearings.

As the board reached the brownfield agenda items at its ways & means committee meeting, Thomas Partridge spoke up from the audience, saying he wanted to comment. Felicia Brabec, who chairs the ways & means meetings, told him that it wasn’t an appropriate time to address the board, but that there would be a public hearing on these items at the regular board meeting that night.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Their exchange prompted commissioner Ronnie Peterson to raise some procedural concerns about the approval process. He felt the public hearing should be held prior to the initial vote at the board’s ways & means committee meeting. So he thought that Partridge’s interruption had been appropriate.

When Brabec told Peterson that the public hearing would happen at the board meeting, he protested, saying “I’ve been around this track a few years” and he found it out of the norm. “This is backwards,” he said, and disrespectful to the public. He apologized to Partridge. The board was being asked to take action without knowing how the public feels, he said. [For agenda items that require public hearings, those hearings are generally held at the regular board meeting, just prior to a final vote on the item. There is typically not a public hearing before the board takes its initial vote at the ways & means meeting.]

Peterson objected to taking the final vote on the same night as the initial vote, even though it was the summer schedule. [Typically, an initial vote is taken at the ways & means committee, followed by a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. For most of the year, the ways & means committee and regular board meetings are held every two weeks, in back-to-back sessions on the same night. During the summer, those meetings are usually held only once a month.]

Andy LaBarre clarified with the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, that there would be an additional public commentary time at the start of the board meeting, as well as the public hearing – two additional opportunities for input. Hedger said that under law, since the public hearing comes before the final vote, there is adequate opportunity for public input. In a perfect world, he added, it would be better to hold the public hearing on a different day, and then take an initial vote at ways & means on one date, and a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. But an accelerated approach has been taken in the past, he noted, especially during the summer months when agenda items often receive an initial and final vote on the same night.

Peterson responded, saying “Expediency sometimes gets you in a lot of trouble.” He wanted to take the time to be cautious. He said he’d be voting no on this item because he didn’t feel there had been adequate public input, adding that it’s no reflection on the projects. He called his record “99 and a half percent voting pro-business.”

Conan Smith said he wanted to clarify the history of this process. A brownfield plan goes through the county’s brownfield authority, and any plan for property in Ann Arbor also goes to the city of Ann Arbor. There are public commentary opportunities at both the county brownfield authority board and at the city council. Then there’s public commentary at the county board’s ways &  means committee meeting before the initial vote, followed by another general public commentary time at the start of the board meeting, and a public hearing on the brownfield plan itself. [Partridge had spoken at the ways & means general public commentary prior to this discussion, but did not talk about the brownfield plan at that point.]

Smith argued that the public hearing can’t be scheduled before the regular board meeting, because the item hasn’t been properly brought before the board until then. [After consulting with Hedger later in the meeting, Smith retracted this statement. When an item is on the ways & means committee agenda, it is considered to be before the board. The ways & means committee is a "committee of the whole," meaning that all board members serve on it.]

There’s been abundant opportunity for public participation, Smith said. He also pointed out that action on the Packard Square plan is an amendment to change the scope of the project, but it doesn’t change the brownfield investment. He characterized it as a “ministerial” change. There has already been a robust public process for that Packard Square plan, Smith said.

Yousef Rabhi noted that he serves on the county’s brownfield development authority board. He praised the 544 Detroit St. project, saying it would be a great addition to the neighborhood and will clean up a contaminated site.

The Packard Square project is in his district, Rabhi said, and he asked Nathan Voght – an economic development specialist with the county – to give an update. Voght described how the board had authorized applying for a $1 million state grant two years ago, which had been received last year. The part of the project covered by the grant started in late May of 2013, and included demolishing the buildings and cleaning up contaminated soil. That’s been done, he said, and there will be a slight period of “demobilization” as the developer puts in place all of the financing and development plans.

Peterson clarified that he had no problems with the plans or the staff, calling the projects “outstanding.” He felt the board needed to follow proper procedures, and suggested that the summer schedule should be reconsidered.

Regarding 544 Detroit St., Dan Smith said he has nothing against the project. But he noted that the board continues to approve various TIF programs – for brownfields, downtown development authorities (DDAs) or local development finance authorities (LDFAs) – without a plan for the outcomes of those investments. “We pretty much rubber stamp these programs. We don’t really have any criteria to evaluate them against,” Dan Smith said, adding that anyone who votes against any particular project would be perceived as being against that specific project or community. He said he wanted to raise that concern again.

Outcome: To protest the process, Ronnie Peterson cast the sole vote against both brownfield plans on the initial vote at the ways & means committee meeting, but joined all other commissioners in supporting the plans in the final vote at the board meeting.

Strategic Plan for County Facilities

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a range of infrastructure projects totaling about $5 million for county government facilities – including redeveloping the Platt Road site where the old juvenile center was located. Commissioners had given initial approval to the overall proposal – called the “strategic space plan” – at their June 5, 2013 meeting.

In addition to the Platt Road site, other projects in the plan include:

• At 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor, consolidate the land records from the building’s lower level to the 1st floor, and remodel the lower level to accommodate administrative offices.
• At 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor, repurpose space in the garden level, including redesigning conference room space.
• At 110 N. Fourth in Ann Arbor (known as the Annex), relocate the Office of Community and Economic Development, Office of Infrastructure Management, and the Public Defender’s office to other leased and county-owned space.
• At the county’s service center near Washtenaw and Hogback, redesign the Learning Resource Center (LRC) as a full conference center, providing county-owned space for large and small meetings. Also, make parking improvements, including adding 110 new spaces, rebuilding the lot between the LRC and the courthouse, and resurfacing the entry drive off of Hogback.
• At a location to be determined, develop a specialty vehicle storage facility for the sheriff’s office and other departments.

According to Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, no general fund dollars will be used for the projects, which are estimated to cost about $5 million. Funding will come from several sources: (1) $1 million from the 1/8th mill fund balance; (2) $650,000 from the facilities operations & maintenance fund balance; (3) $650,000 from the Office of Community & Economic Development reserves; (4) $500,000 from the tech plan fund balance; and (5) $2.2 million from the county’s capital reserves. Dill had briefed commissioners on the plan at a March 20, 2013 working session.

In addition to the projects listed above, other changes will be made to accommodate the county’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS) unit, which provides contract services to the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO). The WCHO will pay for that facilities work, including moving the entire Adult MI program staff to the Annex at 110 N. Fourth; repurposing vacated space at 2140 Ellsworth for Youth and Family Services; and relocating all “service delivery” units to the 1st floor of the Towner II building at 555 Towner Street in Ypsilanti.

Strategic Plan for County Facilities: Board Discussion

Andy LaBarre proposed a two-part amendment. One part directed staff to use the county’s existing vendor pool for work on these projects, whenever feasible.

The amendment also called for the creation of a 9-member community advisory committee to guide the dispensation of the Platt Road site, which is located in LaBarre’s district. The space plan proposes demolishing the former juvenile center and exploring redevelopment of the site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices. Details of how the advisory committee will be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, will need to be worked out and will require approval from the board at a later date.

LaBarre said that his amendment was intended to address some of the issues that had been raised when commissioners discussed this item on June 5.

Regarding the advisory committee, Ronnie Peterson said the proposal was a “total surprise” to him, and it seemed to be giving control over a $1 million property to an entity other than the county board. There are procedures for dealing with the dispensation of county property, he said, and he wondered what authority the committee would have.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger clarified that the committee is advisory only. It has to report back to the board, he added, and the board can either accept the committee’s recommendations or not. “Ultimately, it’s still up to the board as to what they want to do, collectively, with the Platt Road site,” Hedger said. The intent of the committee is to have citizen input.

Peterson indicated that the board has dealt with other controversial proposals, like the jail expansion, without this kind of committee. He said he wasn’t against the advisory committee or citizen input, but he was concerned about setting a precedent. Peterson wondered if they could postpone action until there were more details about how the process would work. Hedger replied that a more detailed resolution would be required at a future meeting to appoint the members and approve the committee’s charge.

At the request of LaBarre, Hedger drafted a revised version of that portion of the amendment to address Peterson’s concerns:

Be it further resolved that the board of commissioners create a nine-member Platt Road community advisory committee to review and develop a recommendation for the disposition of the county’s Platt Road site. The composition and charge of the advisory committee will be determined by the board of commissioners at a later date, provided however that the board of commissioners shall have the authority to ultimately determine the disposition of the Platt Road site.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi clarified that he would be nominating people to the committee, who would then be confirmed by the full board. Alicia Ping felt the process should follow the board’s normal process for other boards and commissions, with people submitting applications for the positions. Rabhi indicated that as an ad hoc committee – not a standing committee – the process would be different, but that applications can be solicited if commissioners wanted to handle it that way. Ping encouraged that approach.

Regarding the vendor pool portion of the amendment, Ping asked for more background about why this direction was necessary. Dill replied that any of the county’s capital projects use the vendor pool to help augment outside professional services that are hired. The pool allows the county to be more efficient and cost effective, he said, in terms of keeping up with a project’s timeline. Every company that’s part of the vendor pool has already gone through the county’s procurement process, he noted, and has been vetted by the purchasing department.

Ping wondered if the county had a sufficient number of companies in the vendor pool to match all of the needs for upcoming capital projects. No, Dill replied. But using the vendor pool would allow projects to use some companies that have already gone through the RFP (request for proposals) process, rather than issuing RFPs for every aspect of a project.

Ping clarified that for larger projects, the work goes out for a competitive bid. Dill said that when a project goes over a certain dollar amount, the county moves away from using the vendor pool and uses a competitive bidding process. The strategic space plan encompasses several smaller projects, he added.

Conan Smith noted that the amendment is worded in such a way that could lead to a very large piece of work being handled by a firm in the vendor pool, rather than going out for a competitive bid. He proposed amending LaBarre’s amendment to designate using the vendor pool for projects under $100,000. His suggestion was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the strategic space plan, as amended.

County Courts Budget

A proposal to postpone the final vote on a notice of intent to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system was on the July 10 agenda.

The board had voted last month 5-4 to give initial approval to the notice – at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The proposal had been brought forward by commissioner Alicia Ping. The move caught some commissioners by surprise, though for several weeks during budget deliberations Ping had expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system. Voting in favor of initial approval on June 5 were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Ping had noted that her goal wasn’t necessarily to cut funding for the courts, but rather to be more transparent about where the money goes. Giving  notice to terminate the agreement would have provided the board the option to end the agreement.

No court officials had attended the June 5 meeting, because the proposal had not been on the published agenda. However, Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court, subsequently spoke with several commissioners, including Ping, about their intent. The courts have historically been in favor of a lump-sum approach – rather than the line-item budget provided by most other units of county government.

The courts operate under a memorandum of understanding with the board of commissioners. The board unanimously approved that MOU on Jan. 19, 2011, replacing one that had been in place since 1990. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding] The agreement states that the county will provide “lump sum” funding to the courts, allocated to: (1) the trial court – an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court; (2) 14A District Court; and (3) a portion of the county’s child care fund. The county does not have line-item budgeting authority, but the courts agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and to provide quarterly financial projections.

From the general fund, the lump-sum payment to the courts in 2013 totals $19,155,029 – with $13,353,110 for the trial court and $5,801,919 for district court. In addition, state funding for certain trial court operations – the Friend of the Court and child care fund – totals $4,977,047. [.pdf of 2013 budget pages with trial court-related amounts highlighted]

County Courts Budget: Board Discussion

Ping reported that she and Dan Smith had met with Shelton, who had provided a detailed document regarding the court’s budget from 2008. [.pdf of trial court budget document] She said Shelton had indicated a willingness to meet with commissioners and the administration about this issue. Shelton had wanted to make clear to the public that the courts submit a line item budget to the county board, she said. However, Ping noted, “they can submit to us whatever they want, and then they can do with it whatever they want, according to current law.”

She said she wanted to give commissioners time to digest the additional information, and to hear the county administrator’s budget proposal for the general fund, which is expected in October. If the board decides to move forward with terminating the memorandum of understanding, it would still give the courts enough time to prepare for the next budget year (2015).

Outcome: On a 6-2 vote, commissioners postponed the item until the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting. Dissenting were Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

Dextech Property Annexation

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to the annexation of land from Scio Township into the village of Dexter. They had taken an initial vote at their June 5, 2013 meeting.

According to the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, the annexation of township property into a village is one of the few instances that requires county board approval. Generally, annexation is handled by the individual municipalities where the annexation occurs.

A letter to the county from Dexter village manager Donna Dettling stated that the annexation request – for a 16.66-acre property – was made by the property owner, Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. The land is adjacent to the Dexter Business & Research Park, where Dextech hopes to expand. The company is Dexter’s largest employer.

On May 13, 2013, the Dexter village council unanimously passed a resolution in support of the annexation. The resolution indicates that although the Scio Township board did not take formal action about the request, there was generally support for the action. [.pdf of communications from Dexter regarding the annexation]

Dextech Property Annexation: Public Hearing

Four people spoke at a public hearing on the annexation. Thomas Partridge said the proposal reflected 19th century politics, and he urged all the townships, villages and cities in Washtenaw County to combine resources into one metropolitan authority under one government, with shared tax revenue and shared purpose. He indicated that such an approach would provide resources for health care, transportation, education, food and other needs.

Dexter village president Shawn Keough thanked commissioners for putting it on their agenda in a timely fashion. He called Dexter Fastener Technologies a wonderful business in the community. As the largest business in the Dexter area, the firm provides a lot of taxpayer dollars to the village, Scio Township and the county, he said. He asked for the board’s support.

Wes Prater said he’s a member of the state boundary commission. The village of Dexter has been working steadily for about two years trying to become a city, he said. There was some difficulty in getting everything done, he added, but the communities worked together, and the outcome will be good overall. He joked that he and Keough “have had our differences, but it’s all worked out.”

A representative of Dextech told commissioners that the firm needs to expand to meet the needs of its customers, which are primarily in the automotive industry. He said the firm doesn’t take this move lightly, and company officials appreciate the cooperation of Scio Township and Dexter to come up with a plan that’s beneficial to all concerned.

Dextech Property Annexation: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson expressed support for economic development, and joked that the firm should visit the county’s east side. “You will find it’s a little quicker and easier to develop on the eastern side of the county,” he said, adding that he’d love to show the firm some sites. [Peterson represents District 6, which includes the city of Ypsilanti and portions of Ypsilanti Township.]

Dan Smith wondered how the boundary change would affect Dexter’s attempt to become a city. Dexter president Shawn Keough responded, saying that it has a very small impact procedurally at this time. After the village receives cityhood status for its current boundaries, an additional boundary modification would be required to bring in that parcel.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the annexation.

Staff for County Clerk’s Office

On the agenda for initial approval was a modest increase in staff for the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office, primarily to handle an increase in processing passports and concealed pistol license applications.

The change involves creating a full-time administrative coordinator position from a job that’s currently part-time (an 0.64 full-time equivalent position). The total cost for that full-time position is estimated at $56,902 – or an additional $15,631 in general fund support. It’s expected that a decrease in the need for temporary workers will help offset the payroll increase, as will a projected surplus in license and permit revenue. According to a staff memo, that revenue is expected to exceed projections by at least $33,824.

From left: Ed Golembiewski, the county’s director of elections, and county clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum.

Until mid-2008, the office had 5 full-time employees (FTEs) in the elections and administration division, which handles passport applications and concealed pistol licenses (CPL). The economic downturn and subsequent restructuring dropped staffing levels to 3.64 FTE positions.

CPL applications increased 140% between 2009 to 2012, to an average 2,091 applications per year compared to 870 in 2009. This year is expected to set a record for CPL applications. For the first quarter of 2013 there were 1,168 applications, compared to 540 in the first quarter of 2012. [.pdf of application data from 2004-2013] [.pdf of approved licenses from 2008-2013]

If the total number of applications in 2013 reaches projections of at least 3,225, then that will generate revenue of $83,824 to the general fund – above the original 2013 budget amount of $50,000.

In addition, on July 10 commissioners were asked to give initial approval to shift support for one full-time position in the clerk/register of deeds office back into the general fund, at a cost of $56,117. That position – a records management specialist – is currently funded by revenues from the office’s “automation fund.” Until 2008, that position was paid for out of the general fund.

The automation fund gets revenue from a $5 surcharge on every deed that’s processed, and is a statewide authorized fee that pays for technology related to the work of the clerk/register of deeds office. It pays for digitizing the county’s land records from 1824 through 1958, which are currently available only on paper. The goal is to relocate the paper records and clear out space in the lower level of 200 N. Main Street, as part of the county’s “space plan.” Digitization will also allow the public to quickly search and retrieve county records electronically, which will generate usage revenues for the general fund. Revenues for online usage increased from about $220,000 in 2010 to about $323,000 in 2012.

According to a staff memo, the number of documents recorded by the county clerk/register of deeds office has increased from fewer than 53,000 documents in 2008 to more than 85,000 documents expected in 2013. Revenues from the office to the general fund have grown from $2.248 million in 2011 to $3.198 million in 2012. Those revenues are expected to continue growing as the local real estate market recovers.

Staff for County Clerk’s Office: Board Discussion

Dan Smith pointed out that this is the third time in 2013 that the board has been asked to approve an increase in staffing. In isolation, each increase makes sense, he said. But as the headcount changes over time, it’s troubling.

County clerk Larry Kestenbaum responded, saying: “This doesn’t change headcount at all.”

Felicia Brabec asked Kestenbaum to elaborate and explain why it doesn’t change the headcount. Kestenbaum said the change entails moving a position from part-time to full-time. That’s based on the need to cover the tremendous increase in applications for concealed weapon licenses. The other change is to shift the funding source for an existing position into the general fund. As the land economy has improved, the number of associated transactions handled by his office has increased, Kestenbaum said. It’s important to keep up with those transactions to avoid delay, he added.

Kestenbaum also noted that his office is giving up its space in the lower level of the administration building at 200 N. Main, as part of the strategic space plan for county facilities. The documents stored there are being digitized, and he wasn’t expecting the move to happen on such an accelerated schedule. Money for this digitization process comes from the automation fund, he noted. By shifting the funding for one employee out of the automation fund and into the general fund, it frees up more funds from the automation fund to pay for digitizing documents. He noted that the paper documents will still be stored, but not at that location. He also reminded commissioners that the increased general fund revenue that’s generated by his office will more than cover the cost of the employee.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the requested changes for the clerk/register of deeds office. A final vote is expected at the board’s meeting in August.

Appointments

Appointments to five Washtenaw County boards and commissions were on the July 10 agenda.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi made the following nominations:

• Police services steering committee: Scott Cooper, representing non-contract areas for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014.
• Washtenaw County/City of Ann Arbor community corrections advisory board: Tori Noe for a term ending Dec. 31, 2013.
• Food policy council: Seema Jolly, filling a slot representing a nutritionist, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2013.
• Workforce development board: Renee Adorjan for the community-based organization slot for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014; and Fred Pittman for the veterans slot for a term ending Dec. 31, 2015.
• River Raisin watershed council (alternate): Evan Pratt.

Rabhi said he planned to hold off on making nominations to the county historic district commission.

Outcome: All nominations were confirmed unanimously without discussion.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Human Services Funding

During public commentary, two people spoke about the importance of funding human services organizations. Margy Long, director of Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative, thanked commissioners for their support of human services in this community. She described the importance of investing in early childhood programs. Success by 6 has one goal, she said – to ensure that every child in Washtenaw County reaches kindergarten in good health and ready to succeed in school.

Margy Long, director of the Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative, talks with county commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

As many as two out of four kids don’t meet that goal at this point, she said, and there are over 40 organizations collaborating to find ways to improve that number. Research has shown that the first five years of a child’s life are critical to their success in learning throughout their life, she said. Long pointed to the return on investment that comes from support during those early years of childhood, including an increased likelihood in graduating from high school and earning a higher income later in life, and less likelihood of criminal activity.

Nicole Adelman, executive director of Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House, described the nonprofit as an emergency shelter for children and families experiencing homelessness. Her organization works with families to find employment, increase income, and find affordable housing. She also serves on the board of the HIV-AIDS Resource Center (HARC) and the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Adelman said she knew she was preaching to the choir for many commissioners, and she thanked them for their support.

IHN-Alpha House receives about $90,000 each year from the county’s office of community & economic development through the coordinated funding approach. Losing that funding would devastate the agency, she said. It doesn’t get much worse than not having a place to live or knowing where your next meal is coming from, she said. The demand already exceeds the available resources, Adelman added. Budget cuts are incredibly hard, she said, but she’s asking the board to dig deeper and find somewhere else to cut. She noted that she’s a 30-year resident of Washtenaw County, and she votes. The county funds services for people who have nowhere else to go. She said she’d bet that the board’s constituents are willing to vote for those who support human services funding. “I know I will,” she concluded.

The county handles its support for human services through a coordinated funding approach managed by the county’s office of community & economic development. The approach involves a partnership of the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw Urban County, the United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. Felicia Brabec, during her report as ways & means committee chair, noted that the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) has selected the coordinated funding program to profile as a best practices case study on social sustainability. [.pdf of ICMA letter]

Communications & Commentary: Benefits for Same-Sex Partners

Cynthia Emerick, a Manchester resident and member of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Ann Arbor, thanked commissioners “for moving so quickly to correct a wrong.” Nine employee families of Washtenaw County government lost health care coverage when the state banned domestic partner benefits for public employees, she noted. [As background, new 10-year labor contracts that the county negotiated earlier this year – to avoid the impact of Michigan's "right to work" law – resulted in the elimination of the county’s healthcare benefits for domestic partners. When the county’s previous labor contracts were opened for renegotiation, that triggered the need to comply with a state law passed in late 2011: PA 297, which restricted public entities from offering domestic partner benefits. For the county, those benefits had been offered to “other eligible adults” who met certain criteria, like sharing the same residence. Nine county employees had been using those benefits, which had been eliminated as of April 1.]

But in late June – soon after a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a ruling came down from U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Michigan that blocked the state from enforcing its ban on domestic partner benefits. Emerick noted that board chair Yousef Rabhi and the county administration acted quickly, and in less than one business day, those nine county employees had their health care coverage reinstated. She thanked the county staff and commissioners for their action, saying it affected a lot of people.

Deborah Dean-Ware, pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd, also thanked the board. She said her church has a long history of supporting the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender community, and they are working hard to see marriage equality become reality in Michigan. The county’s work on the domestic partner benefits “is a very powerful statement for justice,” she said.

Communications & Commentary: Head Start

Felicia Brabec reported that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District has received a notice of award from the federal government, designating the WISD as the organization that will take over management of the Washtenaw Head Start program. The county has been administering the program for more than four decades, but last year decided to relinquish that duty. Brabec said that plans are being made for handling the transition.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The board had voted last month 5-4 to give initial approval to the notice – at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The proposal had been brought forward by commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3). The move caught some commissioners by surprise, though for several weeks during budget deliberations Ping had expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system. Voting in favor of initial approval on June 5 were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Ping had noted that her goal wasn’t necessarily to cut funding for the courts, but rather to be more transparent about where the money goes. Giving a notice to terminate the agreement would have given the board the option to end it.

No court officials attended the June 5 meeting, because the proposal had not been on the published agenda. However, Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court, subsequently spoke with several commissioners, including Ping, about their intent. The courts have historically been in favor of a lump-sum approach, rather than the line-item budget provided by most other units of county government.

The courts operate under a memorandum of understanding with the board of commissioners. The board unanimously approved that MOU on Jan. 19, 2011, replacing one that had been in place since 1990. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding] The agreement states that the county will provide “lump sum” funding to the courts, allocated to: (1) the trial court – an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court; (2) 14A District Court; and (3) a portion of the county’s child care fund. The county does not have line-item budgeting authority, but the courts agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and to provide quarterly financial projections.

From the general fund, the lump-sum payment to the courts in 2013 totals $19,155,029 – with $13,353,110 for the trial court and $5,801,919 for district court. In addition, state funding for certain trial court operations – the Friend of the Court and child care fund – totals $4,977,047. [.pdf of 2013 budget pages with trial court-related amounts highlighted]

On July 10, Ping reported that Shelton had provided a detailed document regarding the court’s budget, and that he had indicated a willingness to meet with commissioners and the administration about this issue. She said she wanted to give commissioners time to digest the additional information, and to hear the county administrator’s budget proposal for the general fund, which is expected in October.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]